M/S Balaji Construction vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court addressed the issue of the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy before the Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that the petitioner, after initially arguing their case, sought to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal. The Court, without commenting on the merits of the petitioner's claim, dismissed the writ petition. However, it granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Service Tax Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the order. The Court directed that if the petitioner files their case before the Tribunal within this period, along with a copy of the High Court's order, the Tribunal shall decide the case on its merits without dismissing it solely on the grounds of limitation. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must generally be exhausted before approaching the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, unless there are exceptional circumstances not present here.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Balaji Construction, through its proprietor Ashok Kumar Kothari, invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to challenge an order dated 12.11.2022. This order was passed by the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain. The order confirmed a demand and recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 3,49,01,987/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking the extended period. Interest and penalties were also imposed under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner sought to assail this order before the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy before the Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, as mandated by the Finance Act, 1994, for challenging the order of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner, represented by Shri Sanjay Sanyal, initially argued the merits of their case before the Court. However, upon being questioned by the Court regarding the availability of the alternative remedy, the petitioner's counsel sought to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the Tribunal. Respondent's Argument: The respondents (Union of India and various CGST & Central Excise authorities) did not present any arguments on the merits of the case as recorded in the judgment. The Court's query focused on the petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy.