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 was not entertained because the earlier common order had left the parties to be governed by the Supreme Court outcome and had preserved the proceedings. The plea based on delayed intimation of transfer to the call book was rejected. The High Court declined interference in writ jurisdiction, noting that an effective statutory appellate remedy remained available, and the writ petition was dismissed with liberty to pursue that appeal.

---

---

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.

---