Facts of the Case

Ajay Kumar Singh challenged a notice dated 03.08.2021 directing him to pay Rs. 97,31,303 as service tax under Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 — a pre-GST levy. He contended no proper notice had been issued and that the order was passed without an opportunity of hearing, nine years after the relevant period, and that filing a statutory appeal would require depositing 7.5% of the disputed amount, hence the writ petition. Respondent No. 2 (Joint Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise) submitted that multiple notices (dated 05.02.2020, 19.02.2020, 05.03.2020, 05.08.2020, 07.08.2020, and 04.11.2020) had in fact been issued, giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the order confirming the service tax demand, said to have been passed without adequate notice or hearing, could be challenged directly by writ petition, bypassing the statutory appellate remedy.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • No proper notice was issued, and the order confirming the demand of Rs. 97,31,303 was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
  • The requirement to pre-deposit 7.5% of the disputed amount to file a statutory appeal justified approaching the writ court directly.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Multiple notices had in fact been issued to the petitioner on several dates between February 2020 and November 2020, providing sufficient opportunity.
  • If the petitioner was aggrieved, he could file a reply, which the authorities would consider strictly in accordance with law.
  • The impugned order was appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that a reply to the notice had not in fact been filed by the petitioner.
  • The order dated 03.08.2021 was found to be appealable under Section 107 of the GST Act, and an efficacious statutory alternative remedy being available, the writ petition was held not maintainable.
  • The petition was dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to law (i.e., file the statutory appeal).

Important Clarification

The underlying tax demand in this case arises under the pre-GST service tax regime (Finance Act, 1994, Section 67), not under GST law itself — it concerns a legacy service tax liability. The order under challenge happened to be appealable through the appellate mechanism now housed under Section 107 of the GST Act (as legacy Central Excise/Service Tax matters are administered by the same GST field formations), but no question of GST liability was decided or even raised in this case.

Sections Involved

  • Finance Act, 1994 — Section 67 (valuation of taxable services for service tax)
  • Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — Section 107 (appeals, used here for the legacy demand)
  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India — writ jurisdiction

Decision – In Favour of

Decided against the petitioner on the threshold question — the writ petition was dismissed for availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy, with liberty to pursue that remedy.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur
  • Case No.: WPT No. 130 of 2023
  • Coram: Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
  • Date of Order: 16 October 2023

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.