2026 (4) TMI 155 - HC - Service Tax

Writ jurisdiction and alternate remedy barred interference with a service tax demand sustained under the extended limitation period.

Service tax demand, interest and penalties for the post-18.04.2006 period were sustained under the extended period of limitation, and the writ challenge ... Challenged the service tax demand and penalties - invoking the extended period of limitation - delayed intimation regarding transfer to the call book - Binding effect of earlier interim protection - Alternative appellate remedy. Call book intimation - Binding effect of earlier order - Alternative remedy - HELD THAT: - The Court held that such challenge could not be sustained in view of the earlier common order of the Division Bench in the petitioner's own batch of cases concerning the levy itself. That order had recorded that, pending the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interim orders would continue to operate for the benefit of the parties and that the parties should individually reply to the show cause notices so that the proceedings were kept alive. In that background, the petitioner could not invalidate the impugned adjudication merely on the basis of delayed intimation regarding transfer to the call book. For the same reason, reliance on the Bombay High Court decisions in Bhushan Vora vs. Union of India [2024 (9) TMI 713 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and ICICI Home Finance Company Limited vs. The Union of India, Principal Commissioner of CGST & Cx. Mumbai [2024 (6) TMI 682 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] was held to be of no assistance. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13] The writ petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within the time granted, and the appellate authority was directed to consider it on merits without reference to limitation if so filed. Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction with the adjudication order, holding that the plea based on belated intimation of transfer to the call book could not survive in view of the earlier Division Bench order governing the parties. The writ petition was dismissed, while preserving the petitioner's right to pursue the statutory appeal within the time granted. Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the service tax demand and penalties was liable to be entertained in view of the earlier common order and the availability of an appellate remedy.Analysis: The impugned adjudication confirmed service tax, interest and penalties for the relevant post-18.04.2006 period by invoking the extended period of limitation. The challenge based on delayed intimation regarding transfer to the call book was not accepted, as the common order in the earlier round had left the parties to be governed by the outcome before the Supreme Court and had preserved the proceedings. In that backdrop, the Court declined to interfere with the adjudication in writ proceedings, especially when an appellate remedy remained available.Conclusion: The challenge was rejected and the writ petition was dismissed, while liberty was reserved to pursue the statutory appeal.