(B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ.)
Union of India and Others _________________________ Appellant(s);
v.
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. and Another _____________________________________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 3609/2015, decided on June 1, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. We have heard Mr. Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri G. Umapathy, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The appeal challenges the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi vide which the High Court has allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent while setting aside the order dated 26th September, 2012 and the respondents’ Service Tax Appeal No. 126/2008 as well as the Stay Petition No. 479/2008 were restored to their original number before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata.
3. Shri Arijit Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants states that in view of the Constitutional Bench judgment of this Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India – (2011) 3 SCC 404, this Court has clearly held that the mechanism which was set up for getting approval from the Committee of Disputes (CoD) was out-lived. He submits that the Court has, therefore, recalled the directions issued in the earlier orders recorded in ONGC(1992) and ONGC(1995), ONGC(2004), ONGC(2007) [ONGC II, ONGC III and ONGC IV].
4. Shri Prasad, learned senior counsel submits that as such the matters which had reached finality now could not have been re-opened. It is submitted that most of the High Courts following the judgment in the case of Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra) have refused to re-open the case.
5. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court has agreed with the proposition that in view of the law laid down in Electronic Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), the matters which were refused permissions by the CoD to pursue the appeal cannot be reopened. However, it is observed that everything will depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
6. It has been found that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the CoD had granted an opportunity to the Revenue to challenge and refused the permission to the respondent-assessee.
7. No doubt that Mr. Prasad submits that the permission granted was for the subsequent year and not for the same assessment year. However, it cannot be disputed that the issues in both the appeals of the Revenue and appeal of the assessee were interconnected. In the peculiar circumstances the High Court exercised its discretion to sub-serve the interest of justice.
8. It cannot said that the discretion exercised by the High Court was exercised in a perverse or erroneous manner, to warrant interference in our appellate jurisdiction.
9. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
10. No order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 3609/2015
Union of India & Ors _______________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Hindustan Steelworks Construction Ltd. and Anr _______ Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 3611/2015 (XVI)
(FOR EARLY HEARING APPLICATION ON IA 103520/2020)
Date : 01-06-2022 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ.)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
Civil Appeal No. 3609/2015
11. The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
C.A. No. 3611/2015
13. List on Friday i.e. on 03rd June, 2022.
———
