Case Law Details
Sajid Rahman Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
Gauhati High Court held that the existence of an alternative relief would dissuade the Court from entertaining the writ petition. Constitutional Jurisdiction cannot be exercised in view of provisions for alternative remedy.
Facts- Vide the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the demand -cum- show-cause notice dated 07.11.2019 as well as the order-in-original dated 28.12.2021, passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Guwahati (respondent no.2).
Notably, by the said order dated 28.12.2021, the respondent no.2 had (i) confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.2,95,33,148/- u/s. 73(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, (ii) interest u/s. 75 of the Finance Act, 1994, (iii) penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 77(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, (iv) penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s. 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, and (v) penalty of Rs.2,95,33,148/- u/s. 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Greatship (India) Ltd., wherein it is held that the question is not about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the question is about the entertainability of the writ petition against the order of assessment by-passing the statutory remedy of appeal. There are serious disputes on facts as to whether the assessment order was passed on 20.03.2020 or 14.07.2020 (as alleged by the assessee). No valid reasons have been shown by the assessee to by-pass the statutory remedy of appeal. This Court has consistently taken the view that when there is an alternate remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under constitutional provisions.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
