Alternative remedy in service tax disputes normally bars writ relief when a statutory appeal is available.

A writ petition challenging a service tax adjudication order was held ordinarily not maintainable where an efficacious statutory appeal was available under the Finance Act, 1994. The High Court reiterated that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and should normally be declined when the same relief can be pursued before the appellate forum. Government ownership of the petitioner did not alter that discretion, and pending or disputed decisions in similar matters did not justify bypassing the appeal. The petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy, and merits contentions were left for the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the service tax adjudication order was maintainable despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis: The availability of an alternative remedy did not create an absolute bar, but the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remained discretionary and was ordinarily declined where the same relief could be pursued before the appellate forum. The petitioner's status as a government-owned company was held to be irrelevant to the exercise of that discretion. The fact that similar disputes involving other assessees were pending or had been decided elsewhere did not justify bypassing the statutory appeal, especially when the Revenue had not accepted those decisions and the issue was still under challenge. The merits contention that tax had already been collected on the entire freight was also treated as a matter for the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---