JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, J.

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.

2. 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.

3. On 21 January 2003, Respondent No. 4 - the State of Maharashtra passed a government resolution concerning water allocation for non-irrigation purposes, such as industrial use. This resolution stated that the buyer would be responsible for paying the water charges. Additionally, on 21 February 2004, the State of Maharashtra issued a Circular outlining the procedure for calculating water charges. Regarding charges incurred by the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra for constructing an irrigation network, the Circular specified that the capital cost would be considered. The charges recovered to compensate for the amount of land that could not be irrigated due to water being diverted for non-irrigation use were referred to as Irrigation Restoration Charges. According to the 2004 Circular, the buyer had the option not to pay the capital contribution cost but instead pay a higher interest rate on water charges. The irrigation restoration charges would then be quantified at Rs. 50,000/- per hectare.

4. The Petitioner operated a thermal power plant in Amaravati district and was registered with the Service Tax department under STC No. AALCS2063DST001. To obtain water for their plant, the Petitioner sought to source it from the Upper Wardha Dam in Simbhora. The Petitioner desired to construct a pump station on government land allotted by the Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation to accomplish this. The Petitioner approached the State Government for permission to draw 87,600 million litres of water per year and had not paid any amount toward the proportional cost of the project's capital outlay. On 22 May 2012, an agreement was reached between the State of Maharashtra and India-Bulls Power Ltd (the Petitioner's previous name). As per the agreement, the Petitioner deposited a security amount of Rs.5,60,640/- with the Executive Engineer, Upper Wardha Dam, Amaravati, and agreed to pay water royalty at a higher rate. Regarding the current issue, the Petitioner agreed to pay or had already paid irrigation restoration charges at Rs.1,00,000/- per hectare. The Agreement stipulated that Rs. 232.18 crores would be paid as irrigation restoration charges every two years, with applicable interest. Furthermore, the State Government permitted the Petitioner to draw 87,600 million litres of water annually for their plant for six years from 22 May 2012.

5. The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4968/2015 at the Nagpur Bench of this Court to challenge the application of irrigation restoration charges as per the Government Resolution dated 21 February 2004. By its judgment and order dated 5 May 2016, the Division Bench partially allowed the petition. It declared that the decision dated 6 March 2009 fixing the maximum rate of irrigation restoration charges prospectively from 1 April 2009 is not applicable. The Bench directed that the State of Maharashtra is entitled to irrigation restoration charges of Rs.50,000/- per hectare. This is not very relevant to the current issue as the Petitioner has already paid the amount of irrigation restoration charges to