2016 (7) TMI 873 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of writ petition - Demand of service tax - seeking permission to cross-examine the witnesses, which was not granted - Held that - Only on the ground of alternative remedy, this petition is not entertained without expressing any opinion on the contentions of the petitioner on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - Consideration of submissions - Permission to cross-examine witnesses - Liability to pay service tax - Statutory appeal to Tribunal and High Court - Interference at intermediary stage - Statutory appellate remedy - Principle of alternative remedy - Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs, and Service Tax dated 01.01.2016, arguing that the competent authority did not consider their submissions, did not grant permission to cross-examine witnesses, and claimed no liability to pay service tax. It was noted that a statutory appeal lies before the Tribunal and further appeal before the High Court on questions of law.

The High Court, considering the matter, refrained from interfering at the intermediary stage and advised the petitioner to avail the statutory appellate remedy. Reference was made to a Supreme Court decision emphasizing the principle of alternative remedy. The Court highlighted that when a statutory forum exists for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, and the statutory mechanism should be followed for effective relief.

The Court, based on the principle of alternative remedy, declined to entertain the petition without expressing any opinion on the petitioner's contentions on merits. It was emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy under the statute must be effective and not merely a formality, ensuring substantial relief. The Court stressed that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should be invoked only when the statutory remedy is inadequate or ineffective, which was not the case presented.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition solely on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy, without delving into the merits of the petitioner's arguments. The judgment underscored the importance of following the statutory appellate process for redressal of grievances, in line with the principle of alternative remedy and the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.