Writ petition dismissed; alternative remedy under CGST Act required. Petitioner given 30 days extension to appeal.

The HC dismissed the writ petition challenging the Order-In-Original confirming a service tax demand, citing the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Despite the petitioner's health-related claims, the court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking Article 226. However, the court granted the petitioner an additional 30 days to appeal before the Appellate Authority, allowing the appeal to be decided on its merits without considering the limitation period. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the exhaustion of statutory remedies in tax recovery matters.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to Order-In-Original confirming service tax demand, availability of alternative remedy under Section 107 of CGST Act, invocation of Article 226 of the Constitution, violation of principles of natural justice, jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition.

Analysis:
The High Court judgment involved a challenge to an Order-In-Original confirming a service tax demand, interest, and penalty. The petitioner cited personal health issues as the reason for not submitting a show cause reply, invoking the court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution despite the availability of statutory remedies. The court noted that the impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the CGST Act within 60 days. The petitioner's argument was based on personal difficulties, but the court referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the importance of exhausting alternative remedies, particularly in tax recovery matters.

The High Court highlighted a Supreme Court case where it was held that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 if an effective remedy is available, especially in cases involving recovery of public dues. The court also referred to another Supreme Court judgment outlining circumstances where a writ petition could be entertained despite alternative remedies being available, such as fundamental rights enforcement, natural justice violations, lack of jurisdiction, or challenging the vires of an Act. In this case, none of these grounds were present, leading the court to dismiss the writ petition due to the lack of evidence showing the petitioner's incapacity to respond to the show cause notice.

Despite dismissing the writ petition, the court granted the petitioner an additional 30 days to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority mentioned in the impugned order. This decision aimed to ensure the interest of justice was served, allowing the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on its merits without considering the question of limitation. The court acknowledged the petitioner's initial approach through the writ petition and the interim protection granted, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary relief through the High Court.

In conclusion, the High Court judgment emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially in matters involving tax recovery. The court's decision to dismiss the writ petition while granting additional time to file an appeal aimed to balance the interests of justice and procedural fairness in the case.

---