IMPORTANT POINT
The Court established that the availability of an alternative remedy precludes the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in tax recovery cases.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. A. K. Purkasthya, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.C. keyal, the learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 & 4.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-In-Original No.215/AC/DIV-1/CGST/2023-2024 dated 26.03.2024 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Exercise, Headquarters Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST, Guwahati had passed an order thereby confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 16,04,738/-on the services rendered during FY 2016-17 in terms with the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In addition to that the petitioner was also saddled with the liability of interest and penalty as mentioned in the impugned order.

3. This Court further takes note of that the said order is appealable in terms with Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST and Central Excise (NER), GST Bhawan that to within 60 days from the date of the said communication.

4. The case of the petitioner as set out to challenge the said impugned order before this Court is that the petitioner on account of personal difficulties arising out of health issues which was beyond the control of the petitioner the show cause reply could not be submitted and as such had invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution inspite of the statutory remedy available.

5. 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 wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the aspect as regards exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution vis a vis availability of alternative remedy. Though a perusal of the said Judgment reveals that the said Judgment was delivered in the case of a proceeding under the Securitization And Reconstruction of Financial Assets And Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, but this Court finds it relevant to take note of the observations of the Supreme Court at paragraph No. 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 mnind 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 difficult to fathom any reason why the High court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

From the above quoted paragraph of the said Judgment, it is seen that the Supreme Court had observed that the High Court ought not to ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective remedy is available to the agrieved person and such a principle should be applied with great rigour in matters involving