Service Tax Demand: Madras HC Quashes Impugned Order Against Ganesh Cell Communication on Terms, Directs Deposit of 25% Disputed Tax [Read Order]
The Court quashed the order dated 09.03.2023 under the Finance Act, 1994, on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days and files a reply treating the order as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice, directing the respondent to pass a fresh order after hearing.
![Service Tax Demand: Madras HC Quashes Impugned Order Against Ganesh Cell Communication on Terms, Directs Deposit of 25% Disputed Tax [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2025/07/23/2068085-madras-high-court-service-tax-demand-taxscan.webp "Service Tax Demand: Madras HC Quashes Impugned Order Against Ganesh Cell Communication on Terms, Directs Deposit of 25% Disputed Tax [Read Order]")
The Madras High Court has quashed the service tax order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise under the Finance Act, 1994 subject to payment of 25% of disputed tax amount. M/s. Ganesh Cell Communication (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the order in Original No.22/2023-ST, dated 09.03.2023, which confirmed service tax demands. The petitioner...
The Madras High Court has quashed the service tax order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise under the Finance Act, 1994 subject to payment of 25% of disputed tax amount.
M/s. Ganesh Cell Communication (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging the order in Original No.22/2023-ST, dated 09.03.2023, which confirmed service tax demands. The petitioner argued against the order, but the court noted that on the part of the petitioner in not filing a timely appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
The respondent, represented by Standing Counsel, submitted that the petition was liable to be dismissed on grounds of laches and cited the Supreme Court decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited.
A bench comprising Justice C. Saravanan observed that while an appeal was time-barred, partial relief could be granted by quashing the order on terms, following consistent views in similar cases under GST enactments and Supreme Court rulings in Singh Enterprises vs. CCE and CCE and Customs vs. Hongo India (P) Limited.
The court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice by treating the impugned order as an addendum. The Court also directed that upon compliance by the petitioner, the respondent is to conduct de novo proceedings and pass a fresh order within three months after hearing the petitioner.
Understand the complete process and tax nuances of GST refunds, Click here
The court also held that in case of non-compliance, the respondent may proceed to recover the tax as if the petition was dismissed. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
