Court dismisses writ petition challenging service tax assessment, citing prior appeal process.

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand-cum-show cause notice and assessment order regarding the imposition of service tax, citing that the petitioner had already pursued appeals and review petitions under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court found that the issues raised in the writ petition were already considered during the appeal process, including the jurisdictional matter. As the Supreme Court had previously rejected the petitioner's request to waive the pre-deposit amount, the court deemed the writ petition as misconceived and advised the petitioner to seek remedies within the statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to demand-cum-show cause notice and assessment order based on jurisdiction to impose service tax. Maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Permissibility of collateral challenge.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought to quash an impugned demand-cum-show cause notice and an original assessment order, arguing that the imposition of service tax on them lacked jurisdiction. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, the petitioner contended that any realization or demand made without lawful authority should be invalidated. The petitioner maintained that the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite any intervening proceedings. However, the respondent argued that the petitioner had already lost a related battle up to the Apex Court and that raising a collateral challenge was impermissible. The petitioner, on the other hand, asserted that challenges to jurisdictional matters were permissible through a writ petition, citing various Supreme Court decisions in support.

The court considered the submissions and found that the assessment order in question had been the subject of an appeal where the petitioner had refused to make a pre-deposit due to financial constraints. Despite multiple appeals and review petitions, the petitioner's challenge to the assessment order was already entertained through the statutory appeal process under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court noted that the same grounds for challenge were available in the appeal itself, including the issue of jurisdiction to impose service tax. The Supreme Court had rejected the petitioner's plea to avoid the pre-deposit amount, leading to the dismissal of subsequent review petitions. Consequently, the court held that the present writ petition, directly challenging the assessment order already subject to appeal, was misconceived and dismissed it. The petitioner was advised to explore remedies available under statutory provisions.

---