2025 (2) TMI 346 - HC - GST

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - seeking quashing of order passed u/s 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 and Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax 2017 - quashing of nonspeaking and vague SCN - HELD THAT - Having regard to the disputed issues relating to whether petitioner is exempted for Service tax under the relevant provision or not is required to be adjudicated by the Department or Appellate Tribunal and the same cannot be adjudicated under Article 226 of the Constitution in the writ petition in the light of Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Versus Rajendra Shankar Patil 2010 (7) TMI 877 - SUPREME COURT . Moreover perusal of counter affidavit on behalf of Respondents read with documents it is evident that petitioner has failed to co-operate in deciding the matter. In fact he was permitted to appear for oral hearing and the same has not been availed. Since Respondents have demanded certain authenticated documents relating to subject matter and the same was not made available. That apart if petitioner is disputing contents of counter affidavit he should have filed rejoinder and it is not filed as on this day. Writ is not a proper remedy for seriously disputed question of facts that are matters of evidence. The instant writ petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petiton disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment are:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 26.12.2023 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 and Section 174 of the Central Goods and Service Tax 2017.

2. Whether the show cause notice issued on 22.04.2019 is non-speaking and vague, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the petitioner can seek a writ of mandamus directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an exemption from service tax under the relevant provisions.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Quashing of the Order Dated 26.12.2023

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought relief under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act 1994 and Section 174 of the CGST Act 2017. The Court referenced the decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others, which outlines when a writ can be entertained without exhausting statutory remedies.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner did not exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act 1994. The Court emphasized the principle that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving disputed questions of fact.

- Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the matter involves disputed facts regarding service tax exemption, which should be adjudicated by the Department or Appellate Tribunal.

- Conclusion: The Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal process.

2. Show Cause Notice Dated 22.04.2019

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner challenged the show cause notice as vague and non-speaking, arguing it violated principles of natural justice.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not provide a detailed analysis of this issue, as it was subsumed under the broader consideration of whether the petitioner had exhausted all available remedies.

- Conclusion: The Court did not quash the show cause notice, as the petitioner was directed to appeal through the appropriate statutory channels.

3. Writ of Mandamus for Hearing Appeal Without Pre-deposit

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner sought a direction for the Tribunal to hear the appeal on merits without pre-deposit, citing financial hardship.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court did not entertain this request, emphasizing the necessity of following statutory procedures and the importance of pre-deposit requirements as a legislative mandate.

- Conclusion: The Court did not grant the writ of mandamus, directing the petitioner to seek relief through the Tribunal.

4. Entitlement to Service Tax Exemption

- Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The petitioner claimed entitlement to service tax exemption, which was disputed by the respondents due to inadequate documentation.

- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted the absence of cooperation from the petitioner in providing necessary documents and the lack of a rejoinder to the respondents' counter affidavit.

- Conclusion: The Court held that the issue of service tax exemption involves disputed facts unsuitable for writ jurisdiction, directing the petitioner to seek adjudication from the Appellate Tribunal.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not appropriate for resolving disputed questions of fact, particularly when statutory remedies have not been exhausted.

- The Court preserved the petitioner's right to appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, instructing the Tribunal to consider the time spent in litigation for the purpose of condoning delay.

- The Court underscored the principle that issues involving factual disputes, such as entitlement to service tax exemptions, should be adjudicated by the appropriate statutory bodies rather than through writ petitions.

- The Court concluded by disposing of the writ petition, granting the petitioner liberty to appeal within a specified timeframe and requesting the Tribunal to expedite the appeal process.