Manoj Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar, proprietor of M/s Manoj Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court challenging an order dated May 27, 2024, issued by the Additional Commissioner (Appeal), Patna West Division. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was passed without jurisdiction, proper application of mind, and in ignorance of Notification No. 13/2012-Service Tax dated March 17, 2012. The petitioner also argued that the order lacked foundational facts, specifically failing to determine if the petitioner fell within the definition of 'Goods Transport Agency' under Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner sought to stay the operation of the impugned order pending the writ petition.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was premature. It noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court found that the petitioner's case did not fall under the four circumstances laid down by the Supreme Court in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. for entertaining a writ petition without exhausting statutory remedies. Therefore, the Court disposed of the writ petition, reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court further requested the Appellate Authority to consider Section 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, taking into account the time spent by the petitioner before the High Court. The Appellate Authority was also requested to decide the appeal within four months from the date of its receipt.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court without the petitioner exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority, particularly when the impugned order is alleged to be in violation of a government notification (Notification No. 13/2012-Service Tax dated 17.03.2012)? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable despite the existence of a statutory appeal remedy because the impugned order was passed in violation of a government notification and lacked foundational facts. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Ors. to support the maintainability of the writ petition without exhausting statutory remedies under specific circumstances. Revenue/State's Contention: The respondents did not explicitly record any arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondents would have argued for the exhaustion of statutory remedies.
Sections Cited
Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994, Section 14 of the Limitation Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 10 10-04-2025 Mr. Parth Jalan counsel for the petitioner appears through video conferencing.
In the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for the following relief(s):- “a. For the issuance of an 2/4 appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27th of May 2024 contained in Memo bearing No. C No. V (15) 387- ST/Adjn/2020/3613 (bearing DIN 20240560XU000000B9DD) as the same is without juri iction has been passed without proper application of mind and in gross ignorance to the circular bearing Notification No. 13/2012-Service Tax dated 17th of March 2012; b. For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) particularly in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 27th of May 2024 contained in Memo bearing No. C No. V(15) 387- ST/Adjn/2020/3613 (bearing DIN 20240560XU000000B9DD) as the same suffers from foundational fact without any finding being returned on the fact as to where the Petitioner falls within the definition of 'Goods Transport Agency under Section 65(50b) of the Finance Act, 1994; c. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the order dated 27th of May 2024 contained in Memo bearing No. C No. V(15) 387- ST/Adjn/2020/3613 (bearing DIN 20240560XU000000B9DD), during the pendency of the instant writ petition; d. For the issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Court may think just 3/4 and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case doing conscionable justice to the Petitioner. e. For the grant of any other relief's for which petitioner has been found entitle in the eye of law.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner is restricting the present writ petition only to prayer (a). The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority Without exhausting such statutory remedy of appeal, petitioner has rushed to this Court. In not exhausting statutory remedy of appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that impugned order is in violation of Government notification dated 17.03.2012 vide Annexure-4. Writ Court can entertain writ petition without exhausting statutory remedy of appeal only under four circumstances which has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. vs. the Excise and Taxation Officer-cum- Assessing Authority and Ors. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 . Petitioner’s case is not covered under the aforementioned judgment.
Resultantly, the present writ petition is pre-mature. Accordingly, the present CWJC No. 13275 of 2024 stands disposed of. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to invoke remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority. If such appeal is filed 4/4 by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority is requested to take note of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condonation of delay relating to time spent before this Court in the present writ petition. The Appellate Authority is requested to decide the appeal to be filed on behalf of the petitioner within a reasonable period of four months from the date of receipt of such appeal, if any.
abhishekkr/- (P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( S. B. Pd. Singh, J) U
Reproduced from the public record of the Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.