Writ jurisdiction against service tax show-cause notice declined where alternate remedy existed and factual disputes needed adjudication.

A writ petition against a service tax show-cause notice was held not maintainable because an efficacious statutory remedy was available and the dispute required first-hand adjudication of mixed questions of law and fact. The Court noted that the petitioner's exemption claim depended on examination of the service contracts, subcontracting arrangements, and the scope of the relevant exemption notifications, so the adjudicating authority had to consider the matter first. In the absence of a case of want of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or challenge to vires, Article 226 relief was declined and the petitioner was directed to pursue the statutory process.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice for service tax demand was maintainable in view of the availability of an alternate statutory remedy, where the dispute involved mixed questions of law and fact and no case of want of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice was made out.

Analysis: The notice called upon the petitioner to explain alleged service tax liability, interest, penalty, and failure to obtain registration. The petitioner invoked exemption based on agreements with the State and the stamp duty position, but the Court held that the controversy required examination of the service contracts, subcontracting arrangements, and the applicability of the exemption notifications. Such scrutiny involved disputed factual and legal questions that were to be examined first by the adjudicating authority. The Court applied the settled rule that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is ordinarily not exercised when an effective alternate remedy exists, unless the case falls within recognised exceptions such as absence of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or challenge to vires.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed; the petitioner was left to submit its reply before the adjudicating authority.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere at the show-cause stage and required the petitioner to pursue the statutory adjudicatory process before the service tax authority.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked against a show-cause notice where an efficacious alternate remedy exists and the dispute turns on mixed questions of law and fact, unless the proceedings are shown to be wholly without jurisdiction or otherwise fall within a recognised exception.

---