Advocates:
['SHAMBHU CHOPRA', 'A S G I', '', 'VINAY KUMAR PANDEY', 'RAMESH CHANDRA SHUKLA']

Court No. - 21

Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 811 of 2018

Petitioner :- Imtiaz Sayed Hussain

Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Shambhu Chopra

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ramesh Chandra Shukla

Hon'ble Krishna Murari,J.

Hon'ble Ashok Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.C.

Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondents.

Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court directly against the

adjudication order in original dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Division, Raebareli.

Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has

raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the present writ

petition. He has submitted that the order in original has been passed by Assistant

Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Division, Raebareli and the writ

petition if at all would lie before the Lucknow Bench. He has further submitted

that the petitioner should have approached the appellate Authority for the relief

so claimed by means of the present writ petition.

In response to the above objections, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied

upon Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited Vs. Union of India 2004 (168) ELT

(SC) to contend that the principle of Section 20 (c) CPC applies to writ petitions

and therefore where even slightest cause of action arises within the territorial

jurisdiction of the Court, the said court will have jurisdiction to take cognizance

of the matter.

In the present case at least part of the cause of auction had arisen at Fatehpur

within the territorial jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the levy and

imposition of Rs. 45,09,352/- as service tax, penalty and late fee + interest in

pursuance of the order in original dated 19.09.2017 passed by the Assistant

Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise Division, Raebareli is wholly

without jurisdiction and as such is bad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is based at

Mumbai since 1992 and since then is living with his family at Mumbai. He has

submitted that earlier the petitioner was running M/s Sahil Lodge and Marriage

Hall on his immovable property, which is situated near Mandi Samiti, Fatehpur

which falls under the jurisdiction of respondent no. 2 but after shifting at

Mumbai the aforesaid lodge is not run by the petitioner and no business was

carried out by him. He has further submitted that even the registration allotted to

the petitioner with the Service Tax Department was later on surrendered by the

petitioner long back on 14.01.2016. He has further submitted that in fact the

petitioner was doing civil work at Mumbai in the name and style of M/s Sahil

Enterprises, a proprietorship firm and that firm is not registered with the Service

Tax Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that

there was no occasion to impose the service tax, penalty and interest etc. upon

the petitioner, hence the order in original passed by the adjudicating Authority is

bad and is liable to be set aside.

On the other hand Sri Ramesh Chandra Shukla has submitted that whatever

submissions has been made by the petitioner's counsel, the same can be

submitted/placed before the appellate Authority.

In reply to the said, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may

be permitted to file an appeal under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act,

1944.

Since the questions which are being raised by the petitioner even otherwise

relate to dispute with regard to facts which would require taking of evidence.

The best course for the petitioner to take recourse to the statutory remedy

available to him.

The time period for filing an appeal under the Act is three months. We,

therefore, condone the delay, if any, in filing the appeal. In case t