M/S Rajdhani Security Services PVT.LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner, GST And Cx, Bbsr 1

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable directly before the High Court, as the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's liability to make a pre-deposit for an appeal was not a valid reason to bypass the established alternative remedy. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) within ten days from the date of the order. The appellate authority was instructed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its merits within 60 days of filing. Crucially, the Court also directed the appellate authority to consider the petitioner's prayers for waiver of pre-deposit and for appropriate interim relief within the same 60-day period while deciding the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

M/s Rajdhani Security Services Private Limited (the petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a notice dated 14.07.2020 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, GST & CX, Bhubaneswar-I Division. This notice, passed under Section 87(b) of the Finance Act, 1994, sought recovery of Rs. 60,81,615/- as tax arrears, pursuant to an Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2017. The petitioner contended that they had already deposited Rs. 25,39,927/- for the relevant period and had been discharged from further proceedings under Sections 73 and 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Despite providing proof of payment, the impugned order was received over six months after the petitioner had approached the Superintendent (ADJN), GST, Bhubaneswar Range-IV with bank challans.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable directly before the High Court, or should the petitioner avail the alternative remedy of appeal? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning Section 35 of the Central Excise Act and principles of alternative remedy). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Order-in-Original was passed on 29.12.2017 and the impugned order on 14.07.2020, making any appeal filed now likely to be time-barred. They also asserted they possessed evidence to prove the tax amount was already paid. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that the impugned notice was a consequential order to the Order-in-Original, which is appealable before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, and therefore, the writ petition should not be entertained directly.