Smti. Ajitha Krishnan vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.

Held

The Court held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable at this stage because a statutory, adequate, and efficacious remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The Court noted that Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, provides for an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Central Tax Appellate Tribunal against an order like the one passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal has the power to condone delays under sub-section (5) of Section 86 if sufficient cause is shown. Therefore, the Court reserved the petitioner's liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, including filing an application for condoning the delay, which the Tribunal is to consider on its merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Smt. Ajitha Krishnan, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated August 19, 2022, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), CGST, Guwahati. This order confirmed a service tax liability of ₹21,85,173/-. The appeal was against an Order-in-Original dated February 4, 2021, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, CGST, Shillong Division-I. The petitioner contended that the authorities failed to address her arguments based on Rule 2A of the Service Tax [Determination of Value] Rules, 2006.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available. The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal did not properly consider her contentions based on Rule 2A of the Service Tax [Determination of Value] Rules, 2006, implying a failure of the appellate process. The respondents, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of GST, contended that a statutory appeal lies before the Customs, Excise and Central Tax Appellate Tribunal against the impugned Order-in-Appeal.