IMPORTANT POINT
The Court reaffirmed the principle that alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking writ relief in tax matters.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. RB Phookan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Ms. K Phukan, the learned CGC appears on behalf of the Union of India. None appears on behalf of the GST on call.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the show-cause notice dated 22.10.2021 as well as the Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2024. It is relevant to take note of that the petitioner was issued a demand cum show cause notice dated 22.10.2021, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why service tax including cess amounting to Rs.30,19,653/-for the period 2016-17 should not be demanded and recovered from him under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 174(2) of the CGST Act, 2017 along with applicable interest and penalty. There is no denial to the fact that the show cause notice was received. However, the petitioner chose not to file any show cause reply. It is further seen that on various occasions, the petitioner was asked to appear by issuance of notice as is apparent from Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 to the writ petition, thereby fixing a specific time for giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, it is seen that the petitioner did not avail the opportunity on account of certain treatment of the petitioner. However, there is no documentary evidence in support thereof.

3. It is further seen that on 18.06.2024, the Order-In-Original which has been impugned in the instant proceedings has been passed, thereby confirming to the demand of service tax including cess amounting to Rs.30,19,653/- and additionally the applicable interest and penalty. It is also seen from the said order that the order was received on 26.06.2024.

4. At this stage, this Court, however, finds it very relevant to observe that the impugned order dated 18.06.2024 is not a part of the record of the instant writ proceedings, but the same was duly handed over during the course of the hearing. A perusal of the said order also shows that an appeal can be filed against the order dated 18.06.2024 to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST and Central Excise (NER), GST Bhawan.

5. In the backdrop of the above, a question, therefore, arises as to whether this Court should at all entertain the instant writ petition taking into account that an efficacious alternative remedy is available.

6. At this stage, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and others reported in (2024) 6 SCC 579 and more particularly to the observations so made at paragraph 23 of the said judgment, which is reproduced herein under:-

“23. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is