M. Jaichandren, J.

The above Writ Appeals have been filed against the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 29.4.2015, made in W.P.Nos.12716 and 12717 of 2015.

2. The Writ Petition, in W.P.No.12716 of 2015, had been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.12.2014, and quash the same.

3. The Writ Petition, in W.P.No.12717 of 2015, had been filed seeking to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the respondent, dated 26.12.2014, and quash the same.

4. The appellants are manufacturers and exporters in Hosieries and Textiles. They are exporting garments to various countries. In order to encourage such exports, the government of India had formed Special Economic Zones and the exporters have been granted exemption from Income Tax, Central Sales Tax and service tax. As such, no service tax is levied on exporters for the payments received by them from foreign buyers. While so, the respondent had issued notices, dated 24.10.2013, proposing to levy service tax on the receipt of export proceeds treating the transaction as an independent transaction, amenable to service tax, based on Reverse Charge Mechanism.

5. The appellants had submitted their detailed objections, dated 10.12.2014, stating that the proposal made by the respondent is without the authority of law. However, without considering the facts of the case, the respondent had levied service tax on the export proceeds, received from Amsco Finance, and also on the service charges relating to the export proceeds, vide proceedings, dated 26.12.2014. In such circumstances the appellants herein had filed the Writ Petitions before this court, in W.P.Nos.12716 and 12717 of 2015. The learned single Judge had passed a common order in the said writ petitions, dated 29.4.2015. Paragraph 3 of the said order reads as follows:

"Though various grounds have been raised assailing the impugned orders, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petitions, as the impugned orders passed by the respondent are appealable under Section 85 of the Finance Act. Therefore, I am of the view that these writ petitions filed challenging the impugned orders, without availing an alternative remedy by way of filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, cannot be maintained and the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed granting liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, giving such liberty to the petitioners, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed."

Aggrieved by the common order passed by the learned single Judge, dated 29.4.2015, the Writ Appeals have been filed before this court.

6. Mr. Joseph Prabhakar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants had submitted that the learned single Judge had failed to exercise the discretionary powers available, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in favour of the appellants. The learned Judge ought not to have dismissed the Writ Petitions, due to the availability of an alternative remedy provided under the relevant provisions of the Finance Act, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, reported in H.P. V. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 142 STC 1 (SC), and in view of the various decisions rendered by this court.

7. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned Judge had failed to see that the respondent had no authority to levy service tax on the export proceeds, as it is nothing but the consideration received on the sale of goods to a foreign buyer. The export had been made pursuant to the agreement entered into by the parties concerned, in accordance with the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, which exempts export sale from tax, as per Section 8 of the Act.

8. The learned Judge had also failed to note th