University must exhaust statutory appeal remedy before seeking relief under Article 226. Appellate Authority can address discrimination issues.

The High Court held that the writ applicant, a University, must exhaust the statutory appeal remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to address all grounds, including discrimination under Article 14, in service tax imposition on educational services. Therefore, the Court directed the writ applicant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy and disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the case's merits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the writ applicant can seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy availableRs.
2. Whether the impugned order is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution concerning discrimination in service tax imposition on educational servicesRs.
3. Whether the writ application should be entertained by the High Court or the writ applicant should be directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994Rs.

Issue 1: Writ Jurisdiction vs. Statutory Appeal Remedy
The High Court deliberated on whether the writ applicant, a University under the GTU Act, can directly approach the High Court under Article 226 without exhausting the statutory appeal remedy available under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that the impugned order is appealable before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The counsel for the writ applicant argued that the issue of discrimination under Article 14 might not fall within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority, justifying the direct approach to the High Court. However, the Court held that the Appellate Authority is competent to consider all relevant grounds, including those related to discrimination, and directed the writ applicant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Article 14 - Discrimination in Tax Imposition
The writ applicant contended that the impugned order, brushing aside a previous decision favorable to another university, resulted in discrimination in the imposition of service tax on educational services. The applicant argued that the decision violated Article 14 of the Constitution by not uniformly applying the law. The Court observed the arguments presented by the applicant but emphasized that the Appellate Authority has the jurisdiction to consider such contentions. The Court highlighted the importance of uniform application of tax laws across the country to prevent discrimination.

Issue 3: Entertaining the Writ Application vs. Directing to Statutory Appeal
The High Court concluded that the writ application should not be entertained, and the writ applicant should pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Authority is competent to address all the grounds raised in the writ application, including issues related to discrimination. The Court disposed of the writ application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, directing the writ applicant to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court also noted that any issue of limitation arising due to the initial approach to the High Court should be considered accordingly.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning behind directing the writ applicant to pursue the statutory appeal remedy instead of seeking relief directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---