Tripura High Court
The Icfai University vs The Ld. Joint Commissioner And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) No.150 of 2024
The ICFAI University, Tripura
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The Ld. Joint Commissioner and Ors.
....Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. H. Deb, Sr. Advocate
Mr. G. Shivadass, Sr. Advocate
Mr. M.T. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Datta, Advocate
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
ORDER
13.03.2024
Heard Mr. G. Shivadass, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
M.T. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.
The disputes relate to the assessment years 2014-15 and 2015-16
for which two separate proceedings were initiated by the respondent-Joint
Commissioner, CGST.
The petitioner has assailed the orders in original dated
24.01.2018 (Annexure-1) and 16.02.2018(Annexure-2) both passed by the
learned Joint Commissioner, Central GST, Agartala under Section 73(1) of
the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner has also assailed the order in appeal
dated 02.12.2020 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent no.2, the Ld.
Commissioner (Appeals). He has also sought quashing of the rectification of
mistake in order dated 09.10.2023(Annexure-4) issued by respondent no.2.
The petitioner also seeks quashing of the recovery notice dated
16.11.2023 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent no.3 for realization of the total
of Service Tax amounting to Rs.2,28,54,513/-, penalty of Rs.2,28,74,513/-
plus interest at the applicable rates failing which the petitioner has been
threatened with recovery proceedings under Section 79 of the CGST Act,
2017. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has inter alia taken a number
of grounds to assail the impugned order.
However, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court
after expiry of the period of limitation even as per the extended period of
limitation granted by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.
03/2020. Reference is made to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline
Consumer Health Care Limited reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681.
Therefore, learned senior counsel for the petitioner seeks
permission to withdraw the writ application in order to approach the learned
CESTAT for preferring an appeal with a delay condonation application. He
submits that the petitioner is under threat of recovery in view of the impugned
notice dated 16.11.2023 (Annexure-5). Therefore, some time may be allowed
to prefer an appeal and till then, the respondents may be restrained from
taking coercive steps for realization of the service tax dues.
Learned counsel, Mr. P. Datta appearing for the Revenue has
upon instructions submitted that if the petitioner is allowed liberty to
withdraw the writ application and prefer an appeal before the learned
CESTAT, the respondents would not take any coercive steps for a period of
2(two) weeks from today.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they would be
making the pre-deposit of the balance amount as mandated under Section
35(F) of the amended Excise Act, 1944.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the submissions made
on behalf of the parties, the writ petition is allowed to be withdrawn.
The petitioner is at liberty to approach the learned CESTAT
against the impugned orders within a period of 2(two) weeks from today and
also make the necessary pre-deposit apart from other statutory compliances
for maintaining the appeal. The respondents have already indicated that no
coercive steps would be taken for a period of 2(two) weeks from today.
However, if no appeal is filed within a period of 2(two) weeks from today, the
respondents-Revenue would be at liberty to take steps for realization of the
Service Tax dues.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
(ARINDAM LODH, J) (APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ)
Snigdha
SAIKAT Digitally signed
by SAIKAT KAR
KAR Date: 2024.03.13
17:59:45 +05'30'
