Taxpayer's claimed tax exemption on Form 26AS receipts challenged in demand notice; writ dismissed due to alternative remedy.

A taxpayer challenged a demand-cum-show cause notice and an order-in-original by writ, contending entitlement to exemption on receipts reflected in Form 26AS. Relying on SC authority on writ self-restraint, the HC held that the availability of an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy ordinarily bars writ interference absent exceptional circumstances. The HC further noted the petition did not disclose documents enabling prima facie satisfaction that the receipts for which TDS was deducted were wholly exempt, rendering the cited precedents inapplicable on the case's facts. Consequently, the writ petition was not entertained and was dismissed at the motion stage, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Validity of the demand-cum-show cause notice and the order-in-original issued by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise.

Summary:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the Writ Petition
The respondents raised a preliminary issue on the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that an alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner through an appeal before the appellate authority. They cited the Supreme Court's decision in *Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.*, emphasizing that the petitioner had not filed the necessary documents and had failed to respond to notices, thus not making a case for bypassing statutory remedies.

The petitioner countered by asserting that the construction services provided were exempt from service tax liability under Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012. They relied on several cases, including *Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority & Ors.*, to argue that the existence of an alternative remedy does not always preclude the writ court from entertaining the petition.

The court, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in *The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Greatship (India) Ltd.*, held that the existence of an alternative remedy dissuades the court from entertaining the writ petition. The court emphasized the principle of self-restraint and directed the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy.

Issue 2: Validity of the Demand-Cum-Show Cause Notice and Order-In-Original
The petitioner challenged the demand-cum-show cause notice dated 23-4-2021 and the order-in-original dated 14-3-2022, which confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 2,17,50,747/-, along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994.

The respondents argued that the petitioner had not filed the ST-3 return for the financial year 2015-16 and had not paid service tax on receipts against taxable services. They further contended that the petitioner had suppressed material facts and failed to submit necessary documents despite reminders.

The petitioner claimed that the services provided were exempt from service tax and produced a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs stating that the construction of bailey bridges was not liable for service tax. However, the court found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient proof to substantiate that all receipts were exempt from service tax.

The court concluded that the materials available in the writ petition were insufficient to satisfy that the petitioner had produced proof before the respondent No. 2 regarding the exemption of the service component from service tax. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the grounds that an alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner. The petitioner was advised to seek this remedy, and the period spent on the writ petition would be excluded from the computation of limitation for filing an appeal. There was no order as to costs.

---