Court dismisses writ petition challenging demand notice, directs statutory appeal

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the demand-cum-show cause notice and order-in-original, directing the petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy through a statutory appeal. The court emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies and highlighted the petitioner's failure to substantiate exemption claims. The petitioner was granted an extended period to file the appeal, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.11.2019.
2. Validity of the order-in-original dated 28.12.2021.
3. Maintainability of the writ petition in light of alternative and efficacious remedy.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.11.2019

The petitioner challenged the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 07.11.2019, which detailed the computation of service tax liability, contraventions of the Finance Act, 1994, and invoked the extended period of limitation. The petitioner provided a brief reply admitting gross receipts but claimed the contract receipts were non-taxable. The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to respond to earlier letters requesting details and did not deny receiving these letters. The court noted that the petitioner did not provide sufficient proof that the receipts were exempt from service tax.

Issue 2: Validity of the order-in-original dated 28.12.2021

The order-in-original confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 2,95,33,148/- and imposed penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner argued that the contract works were exempt under the Mega Exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. However, the court found that the petitioner had not registered under the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, nor filed service tax returns, and did not provide adequate documentation to support the claim of exemption.

Issue 3: Maintainability of the writ petition in light of alternative and efficacious remedy

The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy through an appeal. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Greatship (India) Ltd., emphasizing that statutory remedies should not be bypassed. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the exemption claims and highlighted the principle of judicial restraint in entertaining writ petitions when alternative remedies are available.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to seek alternative and efficacious remedy through a statutory appeal. The period from 21.03.2022 to 22.06.2023 was excluded from the computation of limitation for filing the appeal. No order as to costs was made.

---