Jan Kalyan Parisad vs. Union Of INDIA And 5 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition challenging the orders of the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was not maintainable. The Court also noted that the present writ petition was the second such petition filed by the petitioner, with the first having been dismissed. Consequently, the Court found no good reason to grant any relief to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition is generally not maintainable to challenge orders that have already been adjudicated through statutory appellate mechanisms, especially when a previous writ petition on similar grounds has been dismissed. The operative direction was the dismissal of the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Jan Kalyan Parisad, filed a writ petition challenging several orders: an order in original dated 28.03.2017, an order in appeal dated 05.02.2018, and an order dated 30.08.2019 by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad. The petitioner also sought a direction to adjust Rs. 17,72,021 deposited against due Service Tax in SVLDRS-2019, which amounted to Rs. 17,75,915. The respondents are the Union of India and five others. The Court noted that the writ petition challenging the orders of the original authority, appellate authority, and Tribunal was not maintainable. Furthermore, this was the second writ petition filed by the petitioner; the first, Writ Tax No. 690 of 2020, was dismissed on 15.12.2020.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge orders passed by the original authority, the Commissioner (Appeals), and the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an adjustment of Rs. 17,72,021 deposited against the SVLDRS-2019 liability of Rs. 17,75,915. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and compel the respondents to adjust the deposited amount against their SVLDRS-2019 liability. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents contended that the writ petition was not maintainable, particularly in light of the availability of statutory remedies and the fact that the petitioner had already filed a previous writ petition that was dismissed. The respondents also highlighted the non-deposit of the requisite amount pursuant to the petitioner's SVLDRS application.