2011 (4) TMI 48 - HC - Service Tax

Alternative remedy - The petitioner was not only engaged in works contract but also in construction, commissioning and installation services during the financial year 2005-06 to 2008-09 - Whether or not, the petitioner was involved in the construction, commissioning and installation services is a question of fact which can be more appropriately decided by the Tribunal - It will be open for the Tribunal to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law - Thus, the writ petition dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy by way of preferring an appeal before the Tribunal

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming demand and imposing penalty by Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad. Jurisdiction of Commissioner to decide the matter. Confirmation of demand for period prior to 01.06.2007. Denial of justice. Applicability of judgments not considered by the Tribunal.

The High Court of Allahabad heard a writ petition challenging the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ghaziabad confirming the demand and imposing a penalty. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to decide the matter and that the confirmation of demand for the period before 01.06.2007 was illegal, alleging a denial of justice. The court noted that the petitioner was involved in works contract, construction, commissioning, and installation services from 2005-06 to 2008-09, a factual matter better suited for the Tribunal's determination.

Regarding the jurisdiction issue, the High Court held that the Tribunal was competent to consider and decide the matter, finding no substantial denial of justice to the petitioner. The court emphasized that the Tribunal could address the issue effectively. The petitioner's counsel contended that certain judgments were not considered by the Tribunal, asserting that the Tribunal should have the opportunity to review them and make appropriate decisions in accordance with the law.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal before the Tribunal. The court concluded that the petitioner should pursue the appeal process, thereby declining to entertain the writ petition on the grounds of the existence of an alternative legal recourse.