V. Ramasubramanian, J.

The petitioner, which is registered as a public charitable institution with the department of Income Tax under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and which provides Naturopathy services for various types of ailments, has come up with the present writ petition challenging an Order in Original dated 31.05.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent herein, demanding a sum of Rs.80,65,975/- towards service tax, apart from imposing penalties.

2. Heard Mr. K.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.V.J.K. Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. Respondents 3 and 4 are only formal parties against whom no relief is claimed.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy of appeal to the CESTAT under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. But the petitioner has chosen to come up with the present writ petition, bypassing the alternative remedy of appeal, on the short ground that the impugned order is completely without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory scheme. It is now well settled that a writ petition can be entertained, without directing the party to avail the statutory alternative remedy, under two contingencies, viz., - (a) wherever there is violation of natural justice; and (b) where there is lack of jurisdiction.

4. Since the case on hand is projected as one falling under the second category, we shall examine the same to a limited extent.

5. A perusal of the impugned Order in Original shows that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, on the basis of information gathered by the preventive section to the effect that the petitioner was providing various services, such as, steam bath, sauna/infrared bath, foot and arm bath, whirlpool bath, circular jet, full emersion bath, spinal spray, spinal bath, hip bath, hydro deluxe bath, jacuzi, mud bath, neem paste bath, plant leaf bath, sand bath, massage, mud packs, vibro massages, physiotherapy, exercises, yoga, meditation, colon therapy, etc. On the basis of the said information, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that what was offered by the petitioner fell under the category of "health and fitness services" and that therefore, service tax was payable by the petitioner.

6. In response to the show cause notice issued, the petitioner sent a reply contending that they were actually providing nature cure treatment; that their main activity was to spread awareness of health by way of naturopathy, food therapy, water therapy and yoga at their premises and that their main activities could be divided into two parts, the first dealing with the creation of public awareness and the second dealing with the provision of nature cure treatment to the clients in their premises.

7. The petitioner also pointed out that they have registered themselves as a public charitable trust under Section 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the donations paid to the petitioner were also exempted under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act.

8. After giving an opportunity of personal hearing, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that the various therapies and treatments provided by the petitioner under the system of medicine of naturopathy, were only incidental to the over all services of physical well being and fitness. Therefore, the 2nd respondent came to the conclusion that what was done by the petitioner fell under the category of health and fitness services, and liable to be taxed.

9. But unfortunately, the 2nd respondent has failed to take note of the scope and ambit of the exemption notification bearing No.25/2012, dated 20.06.2012. By the said notification issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 93(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, the Central Government exempted the following taxable services under Section 66B of the Act.

2. Health care services by a clinical establishment, and authorised medical practitioner or para-medics:

3. Services by a veterinary clinic in relation