TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1099
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent Nos. 2 to 6: Mr. P. P. Dawalkar a/w Mr. P. P. Kothari, Advocate. JUDGMENT (PER: HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J) :- 1. The present writ petition preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, a government-registered civil contractor, has approached this court seeking a declaration that the common order dated 20.03.2023, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Nagpur-1 for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017, is non-est and bad in law. The petitioner further seeks a declaration that in view of Notification No. 25/2012, dated 20.06.2012, issued by the Ministry of Finance under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, (for short "the Act") the works of construction of road....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner confirmed the demand by order dated 24.03.2023 The petitioner preferred an appeal under section 85 of the Act before the Commissioner (appeals), CGST and CEX, Nagpur-1, which was partly allowed by order dated 26.07.2024. The Appellate Authority confirmed a limited service tax demand of Rs 30,272/- with corresponding penalties under sections 77 and 78 of the Act. 4. The petitioner submits that notwithstanding the finality attained in respect of Financial Year 2015-2016, the Additional Commissioner again issued an order dated 20.03.2023, imposing service tax for Financial Year 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The petitioner therefore, on 02.02.2025, moved an application before various authorities, including the Joint Commissioner, CGST,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is also the respondents' contention that the petitioner failed to file an appeal within the limitation period prescribed under section 85 of the Act and in order to circumvent such limitation, resorted to filing an application under section 74 of the Act. The Joint Commissioner, in the impugned order dated 19.03.2025, rightly held that he could not rectify an order passed by another authority, namely the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur-1. It is further argued that the petitioner's grievances pertain to factual issues which cannot be entertained in rectification proceedings and the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves dismissal. Having heard both the learned counsels for the parties and having perused the records, the princ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he nature of an appeal or review/revision rather than a rectification request under section 74 of the Act. 8. Moreover, section 74 sub-clause 3 of the Act expressly provides that rectification must be undertaken by the very authority which passed the order sought to be rectified. In the present case, the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 was passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST and CEX, Nagpur-1. The petitioner, however, addressed the rectification application to multiple authorities and the same came to be decided by the Joint Commissioner, CGST, Aurangabad, who had no jurisdiction to rectify an order passed by another authority. The Joint Commissioner rightly observed in the last two paragraphs that he cannot modify or correct the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not in a position to consider the application under Section 74 of the Act and rectify or modify the order passed by another authority. 10. This Court also finds merits in the submission of the respondent that the petitioner's appropriate remedy against the order dated 20.03.2023 lies in filing an appeal under Section 85 of the Act before the Appellate Authority. The writ jurisdiction is discretionary and cannot ordinarily be invoked when an alternate statutory remedy is available unless there is a clear violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction which is not established by the petitioner in the present case. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner's applica....