District Roads And Buildings Officer/ Executive Engineer vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The primary reason was that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order-in-original dated July 25, 2019, but failed to avail it within the prescribed limitation period. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed long after the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal. Despite granting an opportunity to the petitioner to disclose the names of the officials responsible for the delay and to deposit a portion of the tax, the petitioner failed to comply with these directions. Consequently, the Court recalled its earlier interim order dated March 25, 2022, and dismissed the writ petition. The Court did not delve into the merits of the order-in-original itself, focusing solely on the procedural deficiencies and the availability of an alternative remedy. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition under Article 226 is not a substitute for an appeal when the statutory remedy is available and has not been pursued within the stipulated time, especially when the petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay or comply with court directions.

Facts

The petitioner, the District Roads and Buildings Officer/Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Medchal-Malkajgiri Division, State of Telangana, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated July 25, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Tax. This order demanded Service Tax, late fee, and imposed penalties for the period April 2016 to June 2017, totaling Rs. 25,25,710. The petitioner was engaged in activities related to State Government roads and buildings and was receiving payments for road cutting restoration charges from various parties for laying optic fiber cables. However, it was not registered with the service tax department nor had it paid any service tax. The order-in-original also led to a consequential notice dated March 17, 2021, directing the State Bank of India to deduct Rs. 2,30,72,294/- from the petitioner's accounts. The writ petition was filed long after the limitation period for filing an appeal against the order-in-original had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy of appeal was available and the limitation period for filing such appeal has expired, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the order-in-original dated July 25, 2019, and the consequential recovery proceedings are illegal and arbitrary? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was filed due to a lapse on the part of certain officials, preventing the timely filing of an appeal. They also contended that they were unaware of the consequential notice dated March 17, 2021, as a copy was not marked to them. They sought an interim stay to prevent the attachment of their accounts. The petitioner relied on the principle that High Courts can entertain writ petitions even if an alternative remedy exists, especially in cases of illegality or arbitrariness. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents (Union of India and GST authorities) contended that the writ petition was filed belatedly, long after the expiry of the statutory period for appeal. They argued that the petitioner had failed to provide details of the officials responsible for the delay in filing the appeal, despite being directed to do so by the Court. They implicitly argued for the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of alternative remedy and delay.