M\/s. Indian Institute of Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indian Bank
Service Tax
2018 (9) TMI 395 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 5-9-2018
W.P.No.22129 of 2018 WMP No.25932 of 2018
Service Tax
K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.
\nFor the Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran for M\/s.G.R.Associates
\nFor the Respondents : Mrs.Aparna Nandakumar for R1 Mr.V.Sundareswaran for R2 Senior Standing Counsel Mr.Kalyanaraman for R3 for M\/s.Aiyar & Dolia
\nORDER
\nMr. Kalyanaraman, learned counsel takes notice for the third respondent.
\n2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
\n3. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to de-freeze bank account bearing No. 753341477 operated at the third respondent Bank.
\n4.The petitioner is an institution providing educational services in logisti<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n y activities of the petitioner. It is further contented that unless the petitioner is able to operate the said bank account, they will not be in a position even to file the statutory appeal against the order of the first respondent dated 05.03.2018, since such appeal has to be filed along with pre-deposit payment, as required under the relevant provision of law. Therefore, it is contended that the respondents 1 and 2 should be directed to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account by de-freezing the same. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n im relief, which includes regarding the operation of the subject matter bank account for the balance amount available in the account. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the third respondent bank submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to operate only in the event when there is no due payable by the petitioner to the third respondent bank on any other account or liability. Needless to say that operation of the bank account, by virtue of this order is available to the petitioner at the hands of the third respondent bank, provided if there is no other legal impediment. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Indian Institute of Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indian BankService Tax2018 (9) TMI 395 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMIMADRAS HIGH COURT – HCDated:- 5-9-2018W.P.No.22129 of 2018 WMP No.25932 of 2018 Service TaxK. Ravichandrabaabu, J. For the Petitioner : Mr.Sarath Chandran for M\/s.G.R.Associates … Continue reading “M\/s. Indian Institute of Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Principal Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Indian Bank”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13584","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6.Learned counsels appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that though the order was passed by the first respondent on 05.03.2018, the petitioner has not filed the statutory appeal before the CESTAT till this date. Therefore, the impugned action of the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be found fault with.
\n7.It is seen that the petitioner suffered an order in original dated 05.03.2018 passed by the first respondent imposing service tax as well as penalty.<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n9. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to operate the bank account, only to the extent of the amount liable to be made as pre-deposit, while preferring the appeal. The third respondent shall also monitor such operation so that the petitioner does not exceed the withdrawal over and above the pre-deposit amount. As already stated supra, it<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n