M/S Pratap Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Pratap Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 24, 2018, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & GST Division, Varanasi. This order confirmed a demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 11,83,493/- and directed its recovery from the petitioner. The impugned order itself stated that the petitioner had a right to appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, within sixty days, subject to a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5 percent of the demanded service tax. The High Court was hearing the writ petition on June 8, 2018.
Held
The High Court held that it would not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in this matter. The reasoning was based on the existence of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal available to the petitioner under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Court noted that the impugned order itself clearly stipulated this appellate route and the condition of pre-deposit. The principle established is that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be invoked when a clear and effective alternative remedy exists, especially when the statute itself provides for such a remedy. The Court dismissed the petition on the ground of alternate remedy. It also advised the petitioner that if they wished, they could move an application in their appeal for exemption or waiver of the 7.5 percent pre-deposit condition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternate remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner, as provided under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994? The petitioner's contention, implicitly, is that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised due to the grievance against the demand order. The respondent's contention, as reflected in the court's decision, is that the existence of a statutory appeal remedy, with a condition of pre-deposit, bars the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The respondent emphasized the mandatory nature of the pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal.
Sections Cited
Section 85
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 50 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 908 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Pratap Enterprises Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kulashvar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
The petitioner has come up in this writ petition against the order dated 24.3.2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise & GST Division Varanasi whereby the demand of service tax of Rs. 11,83,493/- has been confirmed and the amount has been ordered to be recovered from the petitioner.
The order itself mentions that against the aforesaid order the petitioner has a right to appeal under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 within a period of sixty days on deposit of 7.5 percent of the service tax demanded.
The above deposit of 7.5 percent of the tax as a condition precedent for the appeal is mandatory.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, as the petitioner has an alternate remedy of appeal, we do not deem it necessary to exercise our extraordinary juri iction in the matter.
The pet
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 Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.