TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 1562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... issue involved therein is one and the same, besides the parties too. 2. The challenge in both these Writ Petitions is to the orders, bearing Nos.31/Commissioner/KKS/Audit/2024-2025 and 32/Commissioner/KKS /Audit/2024-2025, dated 12.09.2024, passed by the Commissioner (Service Tax). In short, the orders impugned herein are of calling upon the petitioner - firm to pay service tax and rejecting the petitioner's applications for rectification of assessment. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present petitions are as follows:- The petitioner, in both the petitions, is a partnership firm. It is in the business of "Works - Contract Service". The petitioner - firm claims to be a government contractor, providing services to g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... He would further submit that the petitioner - firm had produced RA bills of the works done by it. Those bills have, however, not been given due relevance by respondent no. 2. Learned counsel has relied on host of authorities to submit that in the similar facts and circumstance of the case, the show-cause notices and the consequential orders have been quashed and set aside:- (i) Gujarat High Court Judgment in the case of M/s. Jay Mahakali Industrial Service Vs. Union of India, decided on 09.01.2025 (Special Civil Application No. 18864 of 2021 and others); (ii) M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Limited Vs. The Excise and Taxation Officer-Cum-Assessing Authority and others, (2023) AIR (SC) 781; (iii) Bombay High Court judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Addl. Commissioner, CGST and CE Vadodara 1 and anr., 2025-TIOL-889-HC AHM-GST Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide. The petitioner - firm was not required to approach the appellate authority, more so, when respondent no. 2 issued two show-cause notices for one and the same year. He then took us to the factual matrix of the matter, to ultimately urge for allowing the Writ Petitions. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent - authorities would, on the other hand, submit that only with a view to avoid payment of 5% of the amount to be paid by the petitioner - firm for approaching the appellant authority, the petitions have been fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-firm has an alternate efficacious remedy in the nature of an appeal. 7. There is substance in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that with a view to avoid payment of 5% of the amount directed to be paid pursuant to the final order, the petitioners have approached this Court. The Apex Court, in the case of Greatship (India) (supra), observed thus:- At the outset, it is required to be noted that against the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under the provisions of the MVAT Act and CST Act, the assessee straightway preferred writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not in dispute that the statutes provide for the right of appeal against the assessment order passed by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." 50. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, par....