The Chhattisgarh High Court in the case M/s Nava Raipur Atal Nangar Vikas Pradhikaran Versus the Union Of India observed and has granted 3 months tine to the assessee in order for depositing pre-deposit before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, CESTAT.
The bench headed by Justice Parth Prateem Sahu in the case observed and has rejected the plea moved in respect to the waiver of the mandatory pre-deposit before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
In the present case, the petitioner named Nava Raipur Atal Nangar Vikas Pradhikaran being a statutary body which is being created through a notification dated 08.01.2022, issued by the state government under the Chhattisgarh Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973. Therefore, a special Development Authority was being created with the objective in order to prepare the development plan for the special areas after approval by the state government and which being for the purpose of implementation of the plan, acquiring, developing, holding, managing and depositing of lands and the other property.
In the said case the petitioner is being registered with the Service Tax Department under the former tax regime. Therefore, the court observed which is based on the report a short payment of service tax, thus, the court also initiated an inquiry against the petitioner, and a show-cause notice was also issued. Further, the petitioner in the case submitted a reply refuting the allegation and an order was passed upon adjudication, the Principal Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Raipur wherein demanding the service tax with interest as stated under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, and a penalty as it is stated under Section 78.
Therefore, the petitioner in the plea preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. As the petitioner has not deposited the requisite pre-deposit and the petitioner is to issue the information letter wherein, he is informed that the mandatory deposit has not been made.
Further, the petitioner in the plea submitted that it was suffering from financial hardship post-COVID-19 pandemic and due to the lockdown during the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in the state of Chhattisgarh, the commercial operations and activities of the petitioner were adversely being affected, wherein it resulted in an acute cash crunch and due to lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic, there being a recession in the market, and considering the said period, thus, the petitioner waived off the delayed interest recoverable on delayed payment of lease rent or lease premium, as the same resulted in the reduced revenue collection for the petitioner.
It has also been contended by the department that the writ petition is not being maintainable, making prayer only for a waiver of mandatory pre-deposit as it is stated under Section 35-F of the Act of 1944.
Accordingly, the court allowed the alternate prayer and has extended the time for the mandatory deposit. Therefore, the court in the case also granted three months’ time to the petitioner to deposit the amount of the mandatory pre-deposit before the Tribunal from the date of passing of the order.
The counsel, Yogendra Aldak, Katyayani Vishnupriya appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Maneesh Sharma represented the respondent.
