Ambedkar S.C. Mutually Aided Labour Contract Co-Op. Society LTD. vs. Additional Commissioner
Held
The High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an effective alternative remedy. The Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory right to file an appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) against the impugned order dated September 23, 2020. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the alternative remedy. The writ petition was dismissed without costs. The ratio decidendi is that writ petitions challenging orders where an effective statutory alternative remedy exists are generally not entertained by High Courts.
Facts
The petitioner, Ambedkar S.C. Mutually Aided Labour Contract Co-op. Society Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an Order in Original No. 03/2020 (ST) dated September 23, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Tax. This order imposed service tax, interest, and penalty for the period April 2014 to June 2017. The petitioner sought to declare the order illegal and alternatively requested that respondents 3 to 18 be directed to pay the dues either directly to the department or to the petitioner for onward payment. The petition also included a prayer for interim stay of proceedings and collection of the disputed amounts. The respondents included various government departments and Telangana State Road Transport Corporation entities.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned Order in Original No. 03/2020 (ST) dated September 23, 2020, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Tax, imposing service tax, interest, and penalty for the period April 2014 to June 2017, is contrary to law, facts, and illegal. The petitioner argued that the impugned order is illegal and sought alternative directions for payment. The petitioner's primary contention was that the order should be quashed. The revenue, represented by the Additional Commissioner, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the court's decision implies that the revenue's position was that an alternative remedy was available.
Sections Cited
Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO AND HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD Between: AND 1 Ambedkar S.C. Mutually Aided Labour Contract Co-op. Society Ltd., (Regd. No. AIUC/KNR/DCO120041937), H. No. 2-6-87, Sanjeevaiah Nagar, Siricilla, Rajanna Siricilla District - 505301, Telangana, rep. by its President, S. Shyam Kumar. ...PETITIONER 2 Additional Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner of Central Tax, Central Excise and Service Tax, tr/edchal Commissionerate, Medchal GST Bhavan, 11-4-64918, Lak Di Ka Pul, Hyderabad - 500004.
The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary (Finance), L/inistry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi --1'10001.
Vemulawada Ir/unicipality, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District, Telangana, rep. by the I\/unicipal Commissioner.
Sri Raja Rajeswara Swamy Devastanam, Vemulawada, Rajanna Siricilla District, Telangana, rep. by its Executive Officer.
Siricilla Municipality, Siricilla, Rajanna Siricilla District, Telangana, rep. by its tVunicipal Commissioner.
Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devastanam, Yadagirigutta, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District, Telangana, rep. by its Executive Officer.
The Deputy Di
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 Telangana High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.