High Court dismisses challenge against tax demand, directs statutory appeal remedy. Condonation of delay and pre-deposit required.

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against a services tax demand, interest, and penalties under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, noting the availability of an alternative statutory appeal remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The court directed the petitioner to pursue the appeal remedy before seeking writ jurisdiction. Additionally, the court allowed condonation of delay in filing the appeal and required a pre-deposit related to the services tax amount, interest, or a penalty of Rs. 10,000 for the appeal to be considered on merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Confirmation of services tax demand, interest, and penalties.
2. Availability of alternative statutory appeal remedy.
3. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
4. Pre-deposit requirement for appeal.

Confirmation of services tax demand, interest, and penalties:
The petitioner, a company, challenged an order confirming a services tax demand of Rs. 1,90,84,482 along with interest and penalties under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The respondents justified the order, stating it was appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory appeal remedy available and should have pursued it before seeking writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was disposed of, directing the petitioner to avail the appeal remedy.

Availability of alternative statutory appeal remedy:
The High Court emphasized that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, which should have been utilized before approaching the court. The court held that since the petitioner had not availed the appeal remedy, the writ petition was disposed of, reiterating the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
Acknowledging that the time limit for filing the appeal had expired during the pendency of the writ petition, the court considered the petitioner's request for condonation of delay. The court directed the Appellate Authority to accept the appeal if filed within two weeks, with the delay condoned. The interim relief granted by the court was extended for four weeks to allow the petitioner to seek further relief before the Appellate Forum.

Pre-deposit requirement for appeal:
Regarding the pre-deposit condition, the court found it just for the petitioner to make a pre-deposit concerning liabilities other than the penalty equivalent to the services tax amount. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal on merits after the petitioner made the prescribed pre-deposit related to services tax, interest, or a penalty of Rs. 10,000, excluding the penalty equivalent to the services tax. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with pending miscellaneous applications also addressed.

---