M/S North Eastern Information Technology Consultancy Services Private Limited v. Union of India and 5 Ors

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010178152023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/4626/2023o M/SoNORTHoEASTERNoINFORMATIONoTECHNOLOGYoCONSULTANCYo SERVICESoPRIVATEoLIMITEDo AoPRIVATEoLIMITEDoCOMPANYoREGISTEREDoUNDERoTHEoCOMPANIESo ACT,o1956,oHAVINGoITSoREGISTEREDoOFFICEoAToL.P.oBUILDINGoMAINo ROADoLAITUMKHRAH,oSHILLONG,oMEGHALAYA-o793003,oREPRESENTEDo BYoITSoDIRECTORoSHRIoLARSINGoLALHMINGSANGAoDEYoSAWYAN. VERSUSo UNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo5oORS.o REPRESENTEDoBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVERNMENToOFoINDIA,o DEPARTMENToOFoFINANCE. 2:THEoCOMMISSIONERoCENTRALoGOODSoANDoSERVICEoTAX oSHILLONG o3RDoFLOORoCRESCENSoBUILDING o M.G.oROADoSHILLONGo PIN-793001 oMEGHALAYA. 3:THEoCOMMISSIONERoAPPEALoCENTRALoGOODSoANDoSERVICESoTAX oCENTRALoEXCISEoANDoCUSTOMS o GUWAHATI oGSToBHAWAN o3RDoFLOOR o GUWAHATI. 4:THEoASSISTANToCOMMISSIONERoCENTRALoGOODSoANDoSERVICEoTAX oSHILLONGoDIVISION-I PageoNo.#o2/4 o 2NDoFLOOR oMEGHALAYAoSTATEoHOUSINGoFINANCEoCO-OPERATIVEoSOCIETYoLTD. o NONGRIMoHILLS oSHILLONG-o793003 o MEGHALAYA. 5:THEoDEPUTYoCOMMISSIONERoCENTRALoGOODSoANDoSERVICEoTAX oSHILLONGoDIVISION-Io2NDoFLOOR o MEGHALAYAoSTATEoHOUSINGoFINANCEoCO-OPERATIVEoSOCIETYoLTD. o NONGRIMoHILLS oSHILLONG-o793003 o MEGHALAYA. 6:THEoSUPERINTENDENToCENTRALoGOODSoANDoSERVICEoTAX oSHILLONGoDIVISION-Io2NDoFLOOR o MEGHALAYAoSTATEoHOUSINGoFINANCEoCO-OPERATIVEoSOCIETYoLTD. o NONGRIMoHILLS oSHILLONG-o793003 o MEGHALAYAo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMR.oRoSoMISHRAo AdvocateoforotheoRespondento:oDY.S.G.I.oo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BEFORE HONOURABLEoMR.oJUSTICEoSUMANoSHYAM ORDERo

11.08.2023 Heard Mr. R. S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST authorities appearing on behalf of the respondents. The writ petitioner herein is engaged in running a computer institute offering Page No.# 3/4 various courses to the aspiring students. According to the writ petitioner, it has been discharging its duties by depositing service tax as and when the same has fallen due. Notwithstanding the same, the petitioner was served with a demand notice dated 31.10.2019 issued by the respondent No.4 vide order dated

03.09.2020, making demand for a sum of Rs.11,16,914/- along with interest and penalty allegedly being the unpaid service tax. Thereafter, the respondent No.5, vide letter dated 27.09.2022, had initiated a recovery proceeding and had also attached the bank account of the petitioner. Assailing the order dated 03.09.2020 the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods and Services Tax i.e. the respondent No.3 by making a pre-deposit of Rs.83,770/- being 7.5% of the amount provided by the statute. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent No.3 has refused to grant any interim order of stay of recovery. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed. By referring to Clause 4.3 of the Circular dated 16.09.2014 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Mr. Mishra submits that any recovery action is required to be stayed pending disposal of appeal preferred before the Commissioner (Appeals)/Tribunal. Notwithstanding the same, the respondent No.3 has declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, CGST, has submitted in his usual fairness that once an appeal is preferred against a demand of GST by making pre-deposit, coercive action would have to be stayed till disposal of the appeal, as per the mandate of the notification dated 16.09.2014. Since it is not in dispute that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was Page No.# 4/4 accompanied by pre-deposit and the appeal is pending disposal and also considering the language of Clause 4.3 of the Notification dated 16.09.2014, this Court is also of the opinion that the recovery proceeding, if any, initiated against the petitioner, ought to be stayed until such time, the appeal is finally disposed of by the respondent No.3. As such, taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the sides and as agreed to by them, this writ petition is hereby disposed of by providing that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner for recovery of the amount so demanded, until disposal of the appeal pending before the respondent No.3.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant