Supreme Court Refuses To Entertain Ola Parent ANI's Plea Against Delayed Service Tax Order

The Supreme Court of India has declined to interfere with a Bombay High Court order directing ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of Ola Cabs, to pursue a statutory appeal against a service tax demand.

A Bench of the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no valid ground was made out to disturb the High Court's decision. The court agreed that the writ petition was rightly not entertained.

The dispute relates to a service tax adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. This provision allows tax authorities to raise demands and determine unpaid or short-paid service tax. It also sets timelines for completing such adjudication.

ANI Technologies moved the Bombay High Court, claiming the order was passed beyond the one-year period mentioned in the law. It argued that the delay made the order invalid.

The tax department opposed this. It pointed to the proviso to Section 73(4)(b). The proviso requires the order to be passed within one year where it is possible to do so. According to the department, whether it was possible involved factual questions. Those questions, it said, should be examined by the appellate authority.

The High Court accepted this view. It held that the limitation under the proviso is not absolute. It noted that deciding whether the delay was justified would require a factual inquiry. Such issues, the court said, are not suitable for writ jurisdiction. It also noted that an effective appellate remedy was available. The court therefore declined to entertain the writ petition. It allowed ANI to file an appeal within four weeks and directed that limitation should not block the appeal.

The Supreme Court upheld this approach. It agreed that the High Court had correctly interpreted the statutory language. It also agreed that the petitioner was rightly sent to the appellate forum.

The top court clarified that there would be no impediment for the appellate authority to decide ANI's appeal on merits and in accordance with law. Given the peculiar facts, it allowed ANI Technologies four weeks to file the statutory appeal. It directed that, if filed within that time, the appeal must be entertained and decided on its merits.

The Special Leave Petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

For Petitioner:  Advocates Tushar Jarwal, Vishnu Kant, AOR