Alternative statutory remedy bars writ when appellant fails to produce documentary proof for claimed service tax exemptions; appeal permitted with pendency excluded.

A writ petition challenging an adjudication imposing service tax, cess, penalty and interest was declined because an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy exists under the appellate regime requiring prescribed pre deposit, and the claimant had not placed requisite documentary evidence to substantiate exemption claims under the relevant notifications; accordingly the adjudicator lawfully invoked extended limitation on the basis of alleged suppression and available material. The court permitted filing of the statutory appeal with exclusion of the writ's pendency for limitation purposes and allowed the appellant to produce necessary documents before the appellate forum to support exemption claims.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition challenging the adjudication order imposing service tax, penalty and interest when the assessee has an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 and has not placed on record documentary proof to substantiate entitlement to exemptions under Notification No. 25/2012-ST and Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012.

Analysis: The adjudication order under challenge assessed service tax, cess and penalties after recording that the assessee had not submitted work orders, invoices, reconciliation statements or other documentary evidence to support claims of exemption under Notification No. 25/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No. 30/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012. The statutory framework provides an appellate remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 which requires a prescribed pre-deposit; constitutional and precedential authorities recognise such a remedy as alternative and efficacious. Where an exemption is claimed under a notification, the onus lies on the claimant to place requisite materials before the adjudicating authority to demonstrate compliance with the notification's conditions. Invocation of extended period under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 was premised on alleged suppression and the material available to the adjudicating authority. The petitioner sought to place additional documents for the first time before this Court; however those documents were not before the adjudicating authority at the time of decision. The Limitation Act, 1963 (Section 14) principles were applied to exclude the period of pendency of the writ if an appeal is filed.

Conclusion: The writ petition challenging the adjudication order is not entertained on the ground that an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 exists and the petitioner had not placed the necessary documentary material before the adjudicating authority to substantiate exemption claims. The petitioner is permitted to file an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Calcutta, with the period of pendency of the writ petition excluded for limitation purposes, and to produce such documents as may be necessary to support the claimed exemptions.

---