https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333442 A civil suit challenging levy and recovery of service tax was held not maintainable because the plaintiff had already invoked the statutory appeal mechanism under the Finance Act, 1994, including a pending appeal before the CESTAT. The Court applied the doctrine of election, reasoning that a litigant cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action and the same relief. On that basis, the statutory appellate route barred recourse to the civil suit, and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. en-us Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Jan 2017 10:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333442 A civil suit challenging levy and recovery of service tax was held not maintainable because the plaintiff had already invoked the statutory appeal mechanism under the Finance Act, 1994, including a pending appeal before the CESTAT. The Court applied the doctrine of election, reasoning that a litigant cannot pursue two remedies for the same cause of action and the same relief. On that basis, the statutory appellate route barred recourse to the civil suit, and the plaint was rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Case-Laws Service Tax Tue, 04 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333442