2017 (4) TMI 1230 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy available - issue involved is period of limitation and also the ground of jurisdiction - whether the question involved is mixed question of fact and law and it deserves to be gone into by the appellate forum? - Held that - in those cases that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible - This Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to entertain this writ petition only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order demanding service tax and penalty, Jurisdiction and limitation of the court, Availability of alternative remedy through statutory appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a writ petition challenging an order demanding payment of service tax and penalty. The petitioner argued that the order was passed beyond the limitation period and lacked jurisdiction. However, the court opined that the issues raised required a detailed examination of facts and circumstances, which should be done by the Appellate Forum, as it is a fact-finding body. The court cited various precedents emphasizing that in cases of fiscal nature, statutory appellate remedies must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court highlighted that the petitioner had the alternative remedy to appeal before the CESTAT and should avail of that option to address all points raised. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal and file a statutory appeal. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

This judgment underscores the principle that in matters involving fiscal nature, statutory appellate remedies must be exhausted before seeking relief through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed appellate process, especially when challenging tax demands and penalties. The judgment serves as a reminder that the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction should not be invoked merely due to the availability of alternative remedies. It reiterates the established legal position that matters related to taxation should first be addressed through the appropriate appellate channels before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The decision provides clarity on the hierarchy of forums to be approached in cases concerning fiscal liabilities, ensuring a systematic and structured approach to resolving disputes in such matters.