Ms Aditya Tiwari And Associates PVT LTD Through Its Director Tarkeshwar Tiwari vs. Union Of INDIA Through Its Secretary Deptt Of Revenue Ministry Of Finance
Facts
The petitioners, M/s Aditya Tiwari and Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Tarkeshwar Tiwari, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated October 8, 2018, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur. This order, pertaining to the period 2012-13, confirmed a demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,20,25,786/- and imposed a penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioners also sought to quash the show cause notice dated November 17, 2017, which preceded the Order-in-Original. The revenue, represented by the Union of India and its officials, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, citing the availability of a statutory appellate remedy.
Held
The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable. The Court noted that the petitioner had chosen to file a writ petition instead of availing the statutory appellate remedy available against the impugned Order-in-Original. The Court found no reason presented by the petitioner to bypass the adjudicatory remedy provided by law. The presence of disputed questions of fact further strengthened the Court's decision not to entertain the writ petition. Therefore, the Court dismissed the writ petition, clarifying that this dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing any alternative remedy permissible under law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before the High Court, given the availability of a statutory appellate remedy against the impugned Order-in-Original, as provided under the Finance Act, 1994 and the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued for the maintainability of the writ petition, seeking to bypass the appellate route. The revenue contended that the writ petition was not maintainable because the Order-in-Original explicitly mentioned the statutory remedy of appeal. The revenue submitted that the High Court should not entertain the writ petition as it involved disputed questions of fact and no justification was provided by the petitioner for not availing the statutory remedy.
Sections Cited
Section 73(1), Section 78, Section 174, Section 142(8)(a)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P (T) No. 6375 2018
M/s Aditya Tiwari and Associates Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur
Tarkeshwar Tiwari
--- --- Petitioners Versus
The Union of India through its Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi
Additional Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur
The Superintendent (Service Tax), Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur
--- --- Respondents ---
CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary Through: Video Conferencing ---
For the Petitioner: Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate ---
06/07.12.2020 Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda is present. Petitioner has prayed for the following relief (s). (a) For issuance of an appropriate writ (s) / order (s) / direction (s), including writ of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the Order-in-Original 05/S.Tax/Addl. Commr/2018 dated 08.10.2018 (Annexure-11), for the period 2012-13, passed by Additional Commissioner, Central GST & CX, Jamshedpur, wherein t
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 Jharkhand High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.