Dinkar Prasad Shukla vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court granted the petitioner's prayer to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the statutory remedy available under the Finance Act, 1994. The Court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's liability for service tax or the validity of the impugned order and demand notice. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's request to avail the statutory appeal mechanism. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition can be disposed of by allowing the petitioner to pursue available statutory remedies when such a prayer is made and granted. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the petition was disposed of on the petitioner's request.

Facts

The petitioner, Dinkar Prasad Shukla, challenged an order dated September 6, 2018, and a demand notice dated March 28, 2019, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Vaishali Division. The petitioner contended that he was not liable for service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The respondents were the Union of India through the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-II, and the Assistant Commissioner. The matter came before the Patna High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is liable for payment of service tax under the Finance Act, 1994, as amended from time to time, in light of the order dated September 6, 2018, and the demand notice dated March 28, 2019. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that he is not liable for the service tax demanded. He sought to question the validity of the impugned order and demand notice. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state in response to the petitioner's challenge. However, the revenue issued the impugned order and demand notice.