RATTAN INDIA POWER LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks to quash and set aside the order passed by Respondent No. 3 - the Principal Commissioner of Goods and Service Tax and Central Excise. This order levied service tax on the amount paid by the Petitioner to the State of Maharashtra for irrigation restoration charges.

(2.) The Respondents have put forth a preliminary contention that the writ petition should not be entertained. They argue that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal to the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and that no exceptional circumstances exist to justify interference in writ jurisdiction. The primary issue to be decided is whether the writ petition should be entertained, given the availability of the alternative remedy of appeal, as argued by the Respondents.

(3.) On 21/1/2003, Respondent No. 4 - the State of Maharashtra passed a government resolution concerning water allocation for non-irrigation purposes, such as industrial use. This resolution stated that the buyer would be responsible for paying the water charges. Additionally, on 21/2/2004, the State of Maharashtra issued a Circular outlining the procedure for calculating water charges. Regarding charges incurred by the Irrigation Department of the State of Maharashtra for constructing an irrigation network, the Circular specified that the capital cost would be considered. The charges recovered to compensate for the amount of land that could not be irrigated due to water being diverted for non-irrigation use were referred to as Irrigation Restoration Charges. According to the 2004 Circular, the buyer had the option not to pay the capital contribution cost but instead pay a higher interest rate on water charges. The irrigation restoration charges would then be quantified at Rs.50,000.00 per hectare.