SOFTECH INFINIUM SOLUTIONS LIMITED REP BY ITS DIRECTOR GOPI NARAYANAN YADAV Vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER, SERVICE TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the order in original dated 20.01.2017, wherein and whereby, the petitioner was called upon to pay the service tax of Rs.3,24,37,563/- and equal amount of penalty as well as other sums as referred to, in the impugned order.

(2.) Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought to maintain this writ petition before this Court by contending that the same was passed beyond the period of limitation and also on the ground of want of jurisdiction, this Court is of the view that the facts and circumstances of the present case would indicate that the above points raised certainly require deep appreciation of the facts and circumstances, which in my considered view, can be gone into and decided by the Appellate Forum, since such forum is also a fact finding forum. The question of jurisdiction and the limitation raised by the petitioner herein is not a simple question of law and on the other hand, it is a mixed question of law and fact, which, in my considered view, can be gone into by the appellate forum as well. Moreover, it is well settled that in cases involving fiscal nature, availing of statutory appellate remedy has to be first exhausted and the party cannot come directly to this court and file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this juncture, it is useful to refer to the following decisions:-

(3.) It is held in those cases that when an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. When the petitioner is having an alternative remedy of appeal to file the appeal before the CESTAT, it is for them to file such appeal and canvass all the points. This Court exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to entertain this writ petition only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy.