Case Law Details
Rattan India Power Limited Vs Union of India (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court dismissed the present petition as petitioner has the option to file a statutory appeal to the Appellate Tribunal and there is no reason why petitioner cannot avail of the statutory remedy of appeal.
Facts- By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order passed by Respondent No. 3 – the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise. This order levied service tax on the amount paid by the Petitioner to the State of Maharashtra for irrigation restoration charges.
The Respondents have put forth a preliminary contention that the writ petition should not be entertained. They argue that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify interference in writ jurisdiction. The primary issue to be decided is whether the writ petition should be entertained, given the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, as argued by the Respondents.
Conclusion- It was held that the Finance Act 1994 provided complete machinery to challenge the order of the assessment in appeals, the last one being before the Supreme Court. Further, even assuming that the first appeal would lie in this court and not the Supreme court, this is not a case where writ jurisdiction needs to be entertained when the petitioner has a remedy of a substantive appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
