Court dismisses challenge to tax liability & penalty; petitioner's failure to appeal original order fatal.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the order-in-original, which confirmed a tax liability of Rs. 4,77,542/- and penalty. The court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the original order, they could not contest the correctness of the Appellate Authority's decision through a writ petition. The court also rejected the argument regarding the defective show cause notice, stating that without challenging the original order, the claim of notice being defective was not valid. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have pursued the appellate remedy and dismissed the writ petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against order-in-original, validity of show cause notice, entertinability of writ petition

Challenge against order-in-original:
The petitioner challenged the order-in-original dated 22.01.2018, where the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount of Rs. 1,58,803/- towards service tax, interest, and penalty. The Revenue appealed, resulting in the First Appellate Authority confirming a demand of Rs. 4,77,542/- and imposing penalty. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective, citing a court decision. However, the petitioner did not challenge the order-in-original. The High Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority had re-quantified the tax liability to Rs. 4,77,542/-, and the First Appellate Authority upheld this re-quantification. As the petitioner did not challenge the original order, the High Court held that the petitioner cannot contest the correctness of the Appellate Authority's order through a writ petition.

Validity of show cause notice:
The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings through the show cause notice was defective. However, the High Court found that since the petitioner did not challenge the original order-in-original, the argument regarding the defective show cause notice was not valid. The court stated that the petitioner cannot claim the notice was defective without challenging the original order.

Entertainability of writ petition:
The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention, bypassing the appellate remedy, citing an individual's inability to approach the appellate authority. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Tribunal but chose not to. Despite the petitioner's insistence on the High Court entertaining the writ petition, the court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the original order, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's objections to the initiation of proceedings were not valid without challenging the original order.

---