Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri T.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vinod Kant and Sri Ashok Singh, learned Senior Standing Counsels for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent No. 6.

2. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief :

(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.1.2014 alongwith the orders dated 11.6.2013, 10.10.2013 and 22.5.2008.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to take any coercive steps in pursuance of the order dated 30.1.2014 alongwith the orders dated 11.6.2013, 10.10.2013 and 22.5.2008.

Facts of the case.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the petitioner is a service provider as Rent-a-cab-operator. He applied for registration under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division-I, Allahabad i.e. respondent No. 2 who issued a registration certificate allotting STC No. “AAEFV4956GST001” vide order dated 4.4.2006 showing address of the petitioner as “Chak Chhatnag Road, Jhunsi, Allahabad”. An assessment order dated 16.3.2010 for the period from September, 2000 to September, 2005, October 2005 to March 2006, April 2006 to March 2007 and May 2008 to July 2008 was passed by the jurisdictional assessing authority i.e. respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), which was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.2011 due to non-compliance of the condition of pre-deposit.

4. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate, New Delhi, who set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the assessing authority. Since the Assessing Authority had not passed the order pursuant to the remand direction, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 160 of 2014 before this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.3.2014 directing the Assessing Authority to decide the matter within one month. Thereafter respondent No. 2 passed the order in original Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 12 all dated 17.4.2014 creating certain demands. He also imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 76 of the Act and also penalty of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that the demand created by the jurisdictional authority i.e. respondent No. 2 has been paid.

6. However, present dispute has arisen because of the admitted facts that a parallel assessment proceedings for the same transactions, same period and in respect of the same amount received by the petitioner from the service recipients i.e. respondent No. 4 was initiated without jurisdiction by the respondent No. 3 i.e. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division-II, Allahabad. An order in original dated 22.5.2008 was passed by him creating a demand of service tax of Rs. 4,53,242/- and penalty of Rs. 9,09,484/- against the petitioner on the basis of another address i.e. “Nirupma House Scheme, 20 Ashrey Stanely Road, Allahabad.

7. It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know about this order for the first time when respondent No. 3 sent the impugned recovery letter dated 11.6.2013 at the actual address/business place of the petitioner asking to deposit service tax of Rs. 4,53, 242/- and penalty of Rs. 9,09, 484/-. Thereafter respondent No. 3 sent a notice dated 13.9.2013 under Section 87 (a) & (b) of the Act to the respondent No. 4 directing him to pay to the credit of the Central Government the aforesaid amount.

8. Thereupon the petitioner moved an application dated 30.9.2013 to recall the orders passed by respondent No. 3 on the ground that the jurisdictional authority i.e. respondent No. 2 and has al