2019 (1) TMI 1559 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Penultimate Order - validity of SCN - HELD THAT - The petitioner is not justified in contending that the very issuance of the show cause notice is a defective one without there being any challenge to the order-in-original by the petitioner - I failed to understand as to how the learned counsel for the petitioner is justified in making such submission before this Court when the fact remains that the petitioner has accepted the order-in-original and not challenged the same before the Appellate Authority. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against order-in-original, validity of show cause notice, entertinability of writ petition

Challenge against order-in-original:
The petitioner challenged the order-in-original dated 22.01.2018, where the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the amount of Rs. 1,58,803/- towards service tax, interest, and penalty. The Revenue appealed, resulting in the First Appellate Authority confirming a demand of Rs. 4,77,542/- and imposing penalty. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was defective, citing a court decision. However, the petitioner did not challenge the order-in-original. The High Court noted that the Adjudicating Authority had re-quantified the tax liability to Rs. 4,77,542/-, and the First Appellate Authority upheld this re-quantification. As the petitioner did not challenge the original order, the High Court held that the petitioner cannot contest the correctness of the Appellate Authority's order through a writ petition.

Validity of show cause notice:
The petitioner argued that the initiation of proceedings through the show cause notice was defective. However, the High Court found that since the petitioner did not challenge the original order-in-original, the argument regarding the defective show cause notice was not valid. The court stated that the petitioner cannot claim the notice was defective without challenging the original order.

Entertainability of writ petition:
The petitioner sought the High Court's intervention, bypassing the appellate remedy, citing an individual's inability to approach the appellate authority. The court noted that the petitioner had the option to appeal to the Tribunal but chose not to. Despite the petitioner's insistence on the High Court entertaining the writ petition, the court held that since the petitioner did not challenge the original order, the writ petition was not maintainable. The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing that the petitioner's objections to the initiation of proceedings were not valid without challenging the original order.