Manoj Sarma vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Ors

Facts

The petitioner, Manoj Sarma, is aggrieved by an order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Tezpur Division. This order directed the petitioner to pay Service Tax amounting to Rs. 6,71,359/-, a penalty of Rs. 6,71,359/-, and applicable interest. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging this order. During the proceedings, the petitioner's counsel acknowledged the existence of an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal before the appropriate authority. The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition to avail this statutory remedy, citing a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in a similar case (WP(C) 8030/2022) which directed the petitioner to file an appeal.

Held

The Court held that an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner against the impugned order. The Court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel, who acknowledged this remedy and sought to withdraw the writ petition to pursue it. The Court also took into account a previous order from a Coordinate Bench in WP(C) 8030/2022, which had directed the petitioner to file an appeal. Since the respondents did not object to the withdrawal, the Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn. The operative direction was to permit the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy as permissible under the law. The writ petition was accordingly closed and disposed of.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal against the order dated 24.06.2021 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Tezpur Division, directing payment of Service Tax, penalty, and interest. 2. Whether the writ petition should be permitted to be withdrawn to allow the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner argued that an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal is available. They relied on a previous order of the Court in WP(C) 8030/2022, which directed the petitioner to file an appeal, suggesting a precedent for pursuing the appellate route. The petitioner sought liberty to withdraw the writ petition to avail this remedy. Revenue's Contentions: The respondents, represented by the learned counsel, did not object to the petitioner's prayer for withdrawal of the writ petition.