Reviewing of Earlier Order of Commissioner of GST is Impermissible by law: CESTAT sets aside order
It was observed that the action of the adjudicating authority clearly amounted to reviewing his own earlier order, which is impermissible in law, also for the reason that it may be a debatable issue
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that reviewing the earlier order of the commissioner of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) is Impermissible by law. M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, the appellant is engaged in providing General Insurance Services, Insurance Auxiliary Services – Reverse Charge, Renting of...
The Chennai bench of Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has observed that reviewing the earlier order of the commissioner of Goods and Service Tax ( GST ) is Impermissible by law.
M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, the appellant is engaged in providing General Insurance Services, Insurance Auxiliary Services – Reverse Charge, Renting of Immovable Property Services, Sponsorship Services – Reverse Charge, Renting of Motor Vehicle Services – Reverse Charge, Legal Services – Reverse Charge, Works Contract Services – Reverse Charge, Manpower Supply Services – Reverse Charge, Other Taxable Services – Reverse Charge.
They opted for provisional assessment on the grounds that they could finalize the tax liability only after collecting data from all their operating offices and hence, provisional assessment was granted for the years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17.
It appeared that after due process, Orders-in Original demanded CENVAT Credit under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. It also disallowed CENVAT Credit on Hotel Accommodation and Medical Insurance. On appeal, the first appellate authority the appeal has dismissed vide commonly impugned.
Regarding the denial of CENVAT Credit on Hotel Accommodation and Health Insurance for employees, the first appellate authority has noted the specific exclusion of the above services with effect from 01.04.2011 with the insertion of clause (C) to Rule 2(l) of the CENVAT Credit Rules and hence, has confirmed the denial of CENVAT Credit in the Orders in-Original of the above services as in order and that the appellant was not eligible to take CENVAT Credit on the Hotel Accommodation and Health Insurance for their staff.
The first appellate authority has held that the appellant had not contested on merits and that their only contention was that the Corrigendum was not permissible under law; and that since the demand in the Corrigendum was not confirmed in the impugned orders, the Commissioner (Appeals) had chosen not to interfere with. Per contra, Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner, supported the findings of the lower authorities.
A two-member bench of Mr P Dinesha, Member (Judicial) and Mr Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) observed that the adjudicating authority has proceeded to finalize the provisional assessments without putting the appellant on notice and hence, the Orders-in Original have been passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
It was observed that the action of the adjudicating authority clearly amounted to reviewing his own earlier order, which is impermissible in law, also for the reason that it may be a debatable issue. Hence, the grievance of the appellant is required to be sustained and the court set aside the impugned order.
Shri S. Muthu Venkataraman appeared for the Appellant and Shri M. Ambe, Deputy Commissioner appeared for the Respondent.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
