M/S Sailaja Commercial Construction Private LTD. vs. The Union Of INDIA And 3 Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The appellant, M/s Sailaja Commercial Construction Private Ltd., filed an intra-court appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Bench dated April 18, 2022. The Single Bench had dismissed the appellant's writ petition, which challenged an order dated September 9, 2021, passed by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Guwahati. This order imposed a demand of Rs. 3,48,03,981 in service tax, along with equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and penalties under Section 77(1) & 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Single Bench had held that the statutory remedy of appeal was available and thus the writ petition was not maintainable.
Held
The Court held that the opinion of the learned Single Bench was justified. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the statutory remedy of appeal under the GST Act is efficacious. The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, which established that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked to examine the validity of a demand notice when an appealable order exists, unless specific exceptions are met. The Court found that none of the exceptions were made out in this case. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the mere requirement of furnishing or making a pre-deposit for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act does not make the remedy inefficacious. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Bench.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition was maintainable when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, as per Section 107 of the GST Act? 2. Whether the requirement of statutory pre-deposit for filing an appeal renders the appellate remedy inefficacious? The appellant contended that the statutory remedy of appeal is not efficacious because a pre-deposit is required. The respondents did not record any specific arguments beyond supporting the Single Bench's decision that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 78, Section 77(1), Section 77(2)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010094152022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/188/2022 M/S SAILAJA COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AS AMENDED UP TO AND HAVING THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT HOUSE NO.9, ADITYA RESIDENCY, BELTOLA NAMGHAR PATH, JAYNAGAR CHARIALI, BELTOLA, IN THE DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI-781028, ASSAM AND REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR DIRECTOR, MR UDAYADITYA GOSWAMI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF UTSHABA NANDA GOSWAMI. ……Appellant -Versus-
THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICE TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, GUWAHATI, GST BHAWAN, KEDAR ROAD, MACHKHOWA, GUWAHATI-781001, ASSAM 3:SUPERINTENDENT (HQRS. ADJ.), GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE COMMISSIONERATE, GUWAHATI, GST BHAWAN, KEDAR ROAD, MACHKHOWA, GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM. 4:THE SUPERINTENDENT, (RANGE -II E, CENTRAL GST),GST BHAWAN, 2ND FLOOR, ROOM NO. 206, KEDAR ROAD, MACHKHOWA GUWAHATI-781001. …… Respondents. For the Appellant : Mr. D. Saraf, Adv. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S.C. Keyal, Sr. SC, GST.
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
2023
The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment/final order dated 18.04.2022 rendered by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.153/2022 disposing of the writ petition preferred by the petitioner/appellant against the order dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Principal Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise, Guwahati in Order in Original No.05/ Pr.Commr./ST/GHY2021-2022 whereby a demand of Rs.3,48,03981 of service tax along with equivalent amount of penalty in terms with Section 78 of the Finance Act 1994 and penalty in terms of Section 77(1) & Section 77(2) of the Finance Act of 1994 has been imposed upon the petitioner. The learned Single Bench held that the Statutory remedy of filing an appeal is available to the writ petitioner and thus, the writ petition was not fit to be entertained. We are of the firm view that the expression of opinion by the learned Single Bench as indicated in the impugned order is absolutely justified. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner that a statutory pre-deposit is required to be made for filing an appeal and thus, the remedy is not efficacious, is clearly unworthy of credence because mere requirement of furnishing or making the pre-deposit with the appeal under Page No.# 3/3 Section 107 of the GST Act would not made the remedy inefficacious. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. Vs. Commercial Steel Limited, reported in 2021 SCC online SC 884 has laid down beyond the pale of doubt that the remedy of appeal under the provisions of GST Act is an efficacious statutory remedy and ordinarily, the writ juri iction should not be invoked to examine the validity of a demand notice. None of the exceptions carved out by Hon’ble the Supreme Court are made out so as to entertain the challenge laid to an appealable order in exercise of the extraordinary writ juri iction. As a consequence of above discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 18.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) No.153/2022. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as the same lacks merit.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
Reproduced from the public record of the Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.