Doctrine of election barred civil suit where statutory service tax appeals were already pursued, leading to rejection of the plaint.

A civil suit challenging levy and recovery of service tax was held not maintainable because the plaintiff had already invoked the statutory appeal mechanism under the Finance Act, 1994, including a pending appeal before the CESTAT. The Court applied the doctrine of election, reasoning that a litigant cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action and the same relief. On that basis, the statutory appellate route barred recourse to the civil suit, and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---

---

Issues: Whether the civil suit challenging levy and recovery of service tax was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal mechanism under the Finance Act, 1994 and the plaintiff's election to pursue that remedy.

Analysis: The suit sought declarations against service tax liability and related recovery measures, but the plaintiff had already availed the statutory remedy by filing appeals under the Finance Act, 1994, including an appeal pending before the CESTAT. The Court held that even assuming the suit was otherwise maintainable, the plaintiff could not pursue two remedies for the same cause of action and the same relief. The doctrine of election applied, and the availability and invocation of the statutory appellate remedy barred recourse to the civil suit.

Conclusion: The plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

---