9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had withdrawn CWJC No. 9292 of 2010 with liberty to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law. No doubt, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same and subsequent cause of action if the need so arise, that would not have any bearing on the present case where admittedly the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal and in fact, in order to avail that remedy, the petitioner had already deposited 7 ½ percent of the pre-deposit requisite amount. In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others [2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a view as to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the CGST and CX. 2. This writ application has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) For quashing of the ex parte order dated 13.03.2024 passed by Sri. P.K. Katiyar, the Learned Principal Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna - 1 communicated vide letter No. 1683 dated 13.03.2024 by which the Respondent has unauthorizedly and arbitrarily passed an order in respect of the periods 2006-07 to 2009-10 declaring that the Petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the tune of Rs.4,57,41,043/-, Interest under section 75 of the Finance Act read with Section 174 of the CGST Act and Penalt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld have been one year only and not the period of five years of extended notice as there was no question of any element of fraud, collusion or willful mis-statement or suppression of fact or contravention of any provisions of Chapter I of the Finance Act, 1994; and for any other relief[s] for which the Petitioner may legally be found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 3. In the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner challenged the show cause notice dated 24.12.2009 and the demand-cum-show cause notice vide Letter No. 2794 dated 18.03.2010 giving rise to CWJC No. 9292 of 2010. The said writ application was admitted vide order dated 29.11.2010. 4. In the order dated 29.11.2010, the Hon'ble Division Bench r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned order is liable to be held bad in law. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 18398 of 2023 (M/s Kanak Automobiles Private Limited vs. the Union of India and Others). 8. Learned counsel has also submitted that the work undertaken by the petitioner would come within the meaning of exempted service. He relies upon Section 65 (105(zzzza) to submit that it excludes works contract for roads and bridges. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents 9. Per contra, the submission of learned ASG is that this writ application is not fit to be entertained as the petitioner has not availed an alternative equally efficacious remedy of appeal before the Tribunal within a period of three months from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iberty to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law. No doubt, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition on the same and subsequent cause of action if the need so arise, that would not have any bearing on the present case where admittedly the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of appeal and in fact, in order to avail that remedy, the petitioner had already deposited 7 ½ percent of the pre-deposit requisite amount. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the questions which are being raised before this Court may be raised before the Appellate Authority as well and a decision on all those issues may be invited from the Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the High Court under article 226 has not pursued, would not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court and render a writ petition "not maintainable". In a long line of decisions, this court has made it clear that availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the "maintainability" of a writ petition and that the rule, which requires a party to pursue the alternative remedy provided by a statute, is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Though elementary, it needs to be restated that "entertainability" and "maintainability" of a writ petition are distinct concepts. The fine but real distinction between the two ought not to be lost sight of. The objection as to "maintainability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
