M/S Jay Mata Di Travels vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The Court held that while it has discretion to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 even with an alternative remedy, it is not proper to ignore a statutory dispensation created for redressal of grievances. In this case, the Court found that an equally efficacious statutory remedy of appeal was available to the petitioner under the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ application in its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court dismissed the application, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy. It further directed that if an appeal is filed before the Tribunal under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994 within two weeks, along with an application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal shall condone the delay and dispose of the appeal on merits.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jay Mata Di Travels, challenged two orders: the Order-In-Original No.17/ASST. COMMR/CGST & CX/ST/VD/2018-19 dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vaishali Division, and the Order-In-Appeal No.18/Pat/ST/Appeal/2019-20 dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna. The petitioner argued that the authorities determined the Service Tax payable based on assumptions and presumptions, and the burden of proof was on the authorities. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994? The petitioner contended that the authorities erred in determining Service Tax based on assumptions and presumptions, and the burden of proof lay with them. They argued that the mere availability of a statutory remedy does not preclude entertaining a writ petition. The respondents argued that the existence of an equally efficacious statutory remedy under the Act makes the writ petition not maintainable.
Sections Cited
Section 86
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18426 of 2019 ====================================================== M/s Jay Mata Di Travels, Proprietor- Dharmendra Singh, At- Chauhatta, Hajipur through its Proprietor Dharmendra Singh, S/o- Shri Bharat Singh, Aged about 41 years, male, Resident of Minapur, Hajipur, Chhippi Tola, Chauhatta, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar- 844101. ... ... Petitioner Versus
Union of India through the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Patna- II, 4th Floor, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan (Annexe Building), Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna- 800001. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central GST and Central Excise, Patna, 2nd Floor, Kendriya Rajaswa Bhawan (Annexe Building), Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna- 800001. 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vaishali Division, Dak Bunglow Road, Hajipur- 844101. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Amit Pandey-Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. S. D. Sanjay (ASG-1 ) Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur-CGC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AS
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.