2017 (3) TMI 1608 - HC - Service Tax

Pre-deposit - maintainability of appeal - Held that - either the unamended or the amended provision of appeal is couched and in such a language as would only enable the petitioner to avail of the remedy only if there is compliance with arbitrary and exorbitant conditions - the conditions imposed by the statute are either excessive or arbitrary requiring our interference in writ jurisdiction, particularly in the absence of any material in that behalf - petition dismissed on the ground that there is an alternate and equally efficacious remedy available to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of adjudication, availability of remedy of appeal before Tribunal, compliance with deposit requirement for appeal, interference in writ jurisdiction, dismissal of writ petition due to availability of alternate remedy.

Analysis:
The High Court considered the challenge to an order of adjudication, stating that the order can be effectively challenged through an appeal before the Tribunal. The Court noted that the order in question dated 13th January, 2016 / 26th February, 2016 can be contested by the petitioner by filing a substantive appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. It was emphasized that the appeal can proceed only if the appellant meets the requirement of depositing 7.5% of the tax demand confirmed. The Court found that the provision for appeal, whether unamended or amended, does not render the remedy illusory or inefficacious. The judges opined that the language of the provision does not restrict the petitioner unreasonably.

The Court further deliberated on the conditions imposed by the statute for the appeal process. It was concluded that the conditions were not excessive or arbitrary, hence not warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted that it is not acceptable for an assessee to approach the Court in writ jurisdiction and avoid filing an appeal based solely on the plea of predepositing 7.5% of the tax. The Court found it inconceivable for the petitioner to seek relief through writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious remedy of appeal is available.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, deeming it misconceived due to the presence of an alternate and equally effective remedy accessible to the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory provisions for appeals and predeposit requirements, affirming the availability of the appellate route as the appropriate course of action in challenging the order of adjudication.