Sashreek Constructors Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA And Anr

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Greatship (India) Ltd., the Court emphasized the principle of self-restraint adopted by constitutional courts, which dictates refraining from exercising writ jurisdiction when a statutory forum is available for redressal. The Court found that the petitioner had not provided sufficient documents to prima facie satisfy that all receipts reflected in Form 26AS were entitled to exemption. Therefore, the decisions cited by the petitioner could not be applied to the unique facts of this case. The Court dismissed the writ petition at the motion stage without issuing notice to the respondents, relegating the petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy. The period from the filing of the writ petition until the delivery of the order was directed to be excluded from the computation of limitation for filing the statutory appeal.

Facts

The petitioner, Sashreek Constructors Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a demand-cum-show-cause notice dated April 23, 2021, and an order-in-original dated March 14, 2022, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati. The impugned order confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 2,17,50,747/-, interest, and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner claimed exemption from service tax for construction of bailey bridges based on a Ministry of Home Affairs clarification and Mega Exemption notification no. 25/2012. The revenue contended that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient supporting documents and had not filed ST-3 returns for the financial year 2015-16.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the availability of an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the existence of an alternative remedy does not always preclude a High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction, citing several Supreme Court and High Court decisions. They contended that the construction services for bailey bridges were exempt under Mega Exemption notification no. 25/2012-ST, supported by a clarification from the Ministry of Home Affairs and reflected in Form 26AS where income tax was deducted at source. They also argued that VAT was deducted on the goods component. Revenue's arguments: The revenue argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as an alternative and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner before the appellate authority. They asserted that the petitioner had not provided necessary documents to substantiate their claim of exemption and had suppressed material facts, including their failure to respond to earlier notices. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors.