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