9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 1107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nos. 1,2,3 & 4. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the Order-In-Original No.215/AC/DIV-1/CGST/2023-2024 dated 26.03.2024 whereby the Assistant Commissioner, GST & Central Exercise, Headquarters Anti-Evasion Unit, CGST, Guwahati had passed an order thereby confirming the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 16,04,738/- on the services rendered during FY 2016-17 in terms with the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994. In addition to that the petitioner was also saddled with the liability of interest and penalty as mentioned in the impugned order. 3. This Court further takes note of that the said order is appealable in terms with Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 to the Commissioner (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc. the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Act is challenged. In addition to that, it was also observed that when an issue is raised purely on a question of law, the High Court can entertain a writ petition. 7. In the backdrop of the above let this Court consider as to whether this Court should entertain the writ petition at all. In the instant case it is seen that neither of the grounds set out in the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Godrej Sara Lee Ltd (supra) is present. Merely because of the fact that the petitioner could not submit the reply to the show cause notice on the ground that he was incapacitated on account of his health problems cannot be a ground to involve the writ remedy more so, when the documents enclosed to the writ petition do not show the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
