Alternate statutory remedy bars writ challenge to service tax demand; appeal to proceed under the pre-amendment regime.

A writ challenge to a service tax and penalty demand was not entertained because an effective statutory appeal remedy was available under the Finance Act, 1994. The article also notes that, since the proceedings began before the amendment introducing a 7.5% appeal fee requirement, any appeal would be governed by the pre-amendment regime. If an appeal is filed, the tribunal is to number it and decide any waiver of pre-deposit and stay application on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the service tax demand was maintainable in view of the alternate appellate remedy, and whether an appeal filed thereafter would be governed by the pre-amendment regime concerning appeal fee and pre-deposit.

Analysis: The challenge was to a demand of service tax and penalty for a past period. The Court noted that the petitioner had an effective alternate remedy by way of appeal to the appellate tribunal under the Finance Act, 1994. It further noted that the proceedings had commenced before the statutory amendment that introduced a 7.5% appeal fee requirement, and therefore any appeal filed by the petitioner would be governed by the provisions as they stood prior to that amendment. The Court also directed that, if an appeal is preferred, the tribunal shall number it and decide any application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay on merits.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was left to pursue the statutory appellate remedy, with the appeal to be processed under the pre-amendment regime.

---