JOINT COMMISSIONER OF GST & CENTRAL EXCISE Vs. CHERAN CEMENTS LIMITED (DEFUNCT) REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the interim order of stay granted by the writ Court at the time of hearing the writ petition for admission, subject to a condition that the writ petitioner pays a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of three weeks.

(2.) The appellants are the respondents before the writ Court. The respondent before us, as the writ petitioner, challenged the Order-in- Original No.14/2011 dated 27.04.2011, wherein and whereby the adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax and interest also by imposing penalty on the assessee/writ petitioner. The said order was put to challenge before the writ Court after seven years, only when the properties belonging to the writ petitioner was put into public auction for realization of the tax due and other amount payable by the writ petitioner.

(3.) Mr.B.Vijay Karthikeyan, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the very entertaining of the writ petition against the Order-in-Original that too made as early as on 27.04.2011, cannot be sustained apart from the fact that the writ Court has also chosen to grant the interim stay of such order at the admission stage itself without even allowing the respondents to put forth their case and bring the actual state of affairs as on the date of filing the writ petition. He further submitted that the properties belonging to the writ petitioner was already under attachment as early as in the year 2011 itself and consequent upon such attachment, e-auction was conducted and third party successful bidder has also emerged on 16.03.2018. He further submitted that a delivery order has been issued in the name of the successful bidder on 20.03.2018. Thus, he submitted that suppressing all those facts, the writ petition has been filed before this Court only to get an interim order, so as to prolong the proceedings one way or other. He further submitted that when the writ petition itself ought not to have been entertained, granting of interim order itself is erroneous. In support of such submission, he relied on a recent decision of the Apex Court [State Bank of Travancore vs. Mathew K.C, 2018 3 SCC 85].