Madras High Court
The Commissioner Of Gst & Central Excise vs M/S. View Max on 13 November, 2024
Author: R. Suresh Kumar
Bench: R. Suresh Kumar, C. Saravanan
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.A.No.1484 of 2021
The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise
Chennai South Commissionerate
6th Floor, MHU Complex
692, Anna Salai, Nandanam
Chennai – 600 035. .. Appellant
Vs.
M/s. View Max
Rep. By its proprietor M.Ramavidyadharan
No.26/52, Balaji Bhavan, 48th Street
9th Avenue, Ashok Nagar
Chennai – 600 083. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against
the order passed in W.P.No.7674 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021.
For the Appellant : Mr.Su.Srinivasan
Senior Standing Counsel
For the Respondent : Ms.R.Sri Viswapriya
for M/s.J.Shankaraman
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by R.SURESH KUMAR, J.)
This appeal has been directed against the order of the Writ
Court made in W.P.No.7674 of 2021 dated 25.03.2021 in the case
of M/s. View Max vs. The Commissioner of GST & Central
Excise.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. We have perused the order which is impugned herein. In
fact, the respondent dealer sought exemption from paying the
service tax in terms of Section 66D(g) of the Finance Act, 1984, by
replying to the show-cause notice dated 08.09.2018, quoting this
provision and also citing the proceedings where similar cases such
exemption has been given, the respondent dealer has sought such
exemption.
3. However, while passing the order, the Revenue has not
considered those aspects and therefore, the learned Single Judge,
prima facie, felt at the admission stage of the writ petition that
there has been an erroneous approach on the part of the Assessing
Authority and in order to get instructions from the Revenue, it was
adjourned.
4. During the final hearing, though the argument seems to
have been made by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the
Revenue, who was the respondent before the Writ Court, that the
cases cited by the assessee do not support the case of the
assessee and it goes in favour of the Revenue and on that score,
the learned Senior Standing Counsel sought dismissal of the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
petition, that position has not been accepted by the Writ Court for
the reason that in those cases, the tax had been collected and it
has not been paid. Therefore, the facts cannot be fit-in into the
facts of the present case, and moreover, such a decision has not
been made by the Assessing Authority while passing the order,
taking note of the earlier precedents as has been sought to be
compared and considered by the assessee dealer and that is the
reason why, the learned Single Judge in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the
impugned order has remitted the matter back to the original
Assessing Authority to reconsider the same and to pass fresh
orders, of course, by taking into account the ratio of the order in
M/s. Chennai Digital Print Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs. The
Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai
North Commissionerate vide Order-in-Original No.9/2017(C.N.)
dated 11.09.2017 as well as any other order passed by the
Coordinate Officer on that issue.
5. The said remand order is only now being challenged in the
present Intra Court appeal and therefore, we do not find any merit
in the appeal. In the order that has been passed by the Writ Court,
impugned herein, which we have gone through, found that the
approach of the learned Single Judge is to be accepted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. Resultantly, the Intra Court appeal fails and hence, it is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
W.M.P.No.9458 of 2021 is closed.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
13.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND
C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
13.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
