Imtiaz Sayed Hussain vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court acknowledged the respondents' preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition and the availability of a statutory remedy. It noted that the questions raised by the petitioner involved factual disputes that would require evidence. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate for the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal. The Court condoned any delay in filing the appeal and directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within one month from the date of the order, it shall be heard and decided within three months thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing. Pending the disposal of the appeal or for a period of four months, whichever is earlier, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed amount of excise dues and furnishing security (other than cash and bank guarantee) for the balance amount, as well as for the penalty and interest.

Facts

The petitioner, Imtiaz Sayed Hussain, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an adjudication order dated September 19, 2017, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Division, Raebareli. The order imposed a demand of Rs. 45,09,352/- towards service tax, penalty, and late fee plus interest. The petitioner contended that he had been based in Mumbai since 1992, had surrendered his service tax registration on January 14, 2016, and was not conducting any business under the service tax regime. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing it should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench or the appellate authority. The petitioner countered by citing the principle of cause of action arising within the court's jurisdiction.

Key Issues

1. Whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering the order was passed by an authority in Raebareli, and the petitioner's primary contention that part of the cause of action arose within the Allahabad High Court's jurisdiction. 2. Whether the adjudication order dated September 19, 2017, imposing service tax, penalty, and interest is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside, given the petitioner's claim of not conducting business and having surrendered his registration. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Court has territorial jurisdiction based on the principle that a writ petition can be filed where any part of the cause of action arises, citing Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited. He further contended that the adjudication order is bad as it was passed without jurisdiction, as he was not engaged in any business liable for service tax and had surrendered his registration. He also sought permission to file an appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing that it should have been filed before the Lucknow Bench and that the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority.