Amar Kumar Saha Proprietor Of Amar Construction vs. The Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST And Cx Commissionerate And Ors

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court found that the impugned order of recovery was neither without jurisdiction nor was there any violation of the principle of natural justice. Furthermore, the constitutionality of any provision of the statute was not involved in the writ petition. Therefore, considering the factual and legal position, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The Court noted the availability of an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions should not be entertained when an efficacious alternative remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances like lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or constitutional invalidity are present.

Facts

The petitioner, Amar Kumar Saha, Proprietor of Amar Construction, challenged an order of recovery of demand raised by the service tax authority. The demand pertains to transactions for the period from 2016-17 up to June 2017. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court. The respondent authorities are the Joint Commissioner, Howrah CGST & CX Commissionerate, and others.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, considering the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994? The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice, and that the constitutionality of a statutory provision was involved, thus justifying the writ petition. The revenue authorities argued that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the existence of a statutory appellate remedy.