Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA, JJ.
M/s Shri Kanhad Dev Songara Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti - Petitioner
Versus
Commissioner Of Central Excise, Central Excise Commissioner, Jodhpur - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19168/2024
Decided on : 09-09-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. Sharad Kothari with Mr. Pranjul Mehta
For the Respondent: Mr. Rajvendra Sarswat with Mr. Rishabh Dadhich
The High Court will typically refrain from exercising jurisdiction when an effective alternative remedy exists, barring exceptional circumstances involving natural justice violations or jurisdictional challenges.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Section 4 - Finance Act, 1994 - Service Tax demand of Rs.27,33,691/- confirmed by Additional Commissioner; appeal to Tribunal dismissed for non-representation; restoration application rejected. (Paras 2-11)
(B) Jurisdiction - High Court will not interfere if alternative remedies are available; exceptions applied. (Paras 6, 7)
(C) Principles of Natural Justice - Non-appearance due to miscommunication does not warrant setting aside a Tribunal’s decision on merits. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner operates a Mandi Yard earning income from lease charges; Show Cause Notice for service tax issued for income received from 2007 to 2012; previous appeals were dismissed.
Findings of Court:
Dismissed the petition due to available alternative remedies and confirmed the Tribunal's discretion in not restoring appeal.
Issues: The main issues were the petitioner’s non-representation at hearing, the validity of dismissal based on Supreme Court rulings on merits, and the interpretation of service tax applicability.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal acted within its discretion to dismiss the petition for default; lack of intent to appear does not undermine the merits of the decision.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on representations and merits (Para 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. ratio regarding alternative remedies and jurisdiction (Para 7 , 12) |
| 5. final dismissal of the petition (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP TANEJA, J.
1. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner. Petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2024 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application seeking restoration of the appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner is a ‘Mandi Yard’ established by the State Government pursuant to the powers conferred upon the State Government under Section 4 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961. Petitioner earns its income, inter alia, from rent/lease charges of shops/go-downs within the premises of the Mandi Samiti (Market Area).
2.1 The Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Jaipur-II issued a show cause notice dated 11.10.2012 to the petitioner to show cause as to why service tax amounting to Rs.27,33,691/- be not paid by petitioner in terms of Section 73(1) of the FINANCE ACT , 1994 along with interest and penalty on the amount of Rs.2,54,15,122/- received by petitioner during April, 2007 to March, 2012.
2.2 Petitioner furnished a detailed reply to the said show cause notice.
2.3 After granting personal hearing to petitioner, the Additional Commissioner passed the Order in Original dated 07.11.2013 confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.27,33,691/- along with interest and penalty.
2.4 Being aggrieved by the Order in Original, petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jaipur, which came to be dismissed by order dated 09.12.2016.
2.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The case was listed on 23.01.2024, however, when there was no representation on behalf of petitioner, the Tribunal while relying upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Alwar reported in 2022 (58) GSTL 129 (SC) dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Petitioner thereafter filed an application for restoration of the appeal. However, the Tribunal dismissed the said application vide order dated 26.07.2024.
2.6 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders dated 23.01.2024 and 26.07.2024, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner could not be effectively represented before the Tribunal due to bonafide miscommunication between petitioner’s local counsel and Delhi based counsel. Counsel has further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appeal of petitioner solely on the contention of representative of respondent-department that the matter was covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (supra) whereas petitioner had raised various grounds in the appeal.
3.1 Counsel has also submitted that the Tribunal also erred in rejecting application for restoration of the appeal without appreciating that non-appearance on behalf of petitioner was not intentional. It is further submitted that in case of bonafide confusion of advocates/ authorised representatives, the concerned party should be granted a chance of hearing before any adverse judgment is passed.
3.2 On merits of the matter, counsel for petitioner has submitted that receival of rent towards long term renewable leases was akin to sales and not the service, therefore, service tax was not payable on the amount received by petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of f
