2020 (4) TMI 698 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of appeal - appropriate forum - legal and factual contentions raised by the appellant - availability of statutory remedy - HELD THAT - There is no prayer made in the writ petition for challenging the constitutional validity of any statutory provision. The legal and factual contentions which are raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition can be always raised before the Appellate Tribunal by preferring an appeal. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always equitable and discretionary. The learned Single Judge has declined to interfere on the ground of availability of an efficacious remedy - Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order-in-original and order in appeal, availability of statutory remedy before Appellate Tribunal, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged an order-in-original and an order in appeal before the High Court through a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court noted that a statutory remedy was available to the appellant to challenge the impugned orders before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Single Judge emphasized the importance of availing the statutory remedy and protecting the appellant's interests, especially considering the potential delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Appellate Authority had disregarded legal principles established by the Apex Court and had acted in violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. The counsel contended that such issues of constitutional validity could only be addressed by a writ Court under Article 226 and not by the Appellate Tribunal. However, the High Court observed that the writ petition did not include a prayer challenging the constitutional validity of any statutory provision. It was clarified that the legal and factual contentions raised in the writ petition could be presented before the Appellate Tribunal by filing an appeal, as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary and equitable.

Ultimately, the High Court agreed with the learned Single Judge's decision not to interfere in the matter due to the existence of an efficacious remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the appeal, but explicitly stated that all contentions raised by the appellant could still be pursued in the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The High Court maintained that the appellant could raise all relevant arguments in the appeal process, despite the dismissal of the appeal by the High Court.