By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, MAY 24, 2017: THE petitioner has challenged the o-in-o wherein service tax of Rs.3,24,37,563/- is confirmed and equal amount of penalty is imposed.

It is submitted that the petition is maintainable since the order was passed beyond the period of limitation and also on the ground of want of jurisdiction.

The High Court observed that the facts and circumstances indicated that the points raised require deep appreciation of the facts and circumstances and which can be gone into and decided by the Appellate Forum, since such forum is also a fact finding forum.

Furthermore, the question of jurisdiction and the limitation raised by the petitioner is not a simple question of law and on the other hand, it is a mixed question of law and fact, which, can be gone into by the appellate forum as well, the Court added.

Emphasizing that 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 the court and file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court adverted to the decisions in M/s. NivaramPharma Private Limited - 2005-TIOL-29-HC-MAD-CX ,Raj Kumar Shivahare - 2010-TIOL-29-SC-FEMA & Metal Weld Electrodes - 2013-TIOL-865-HC-MAD-CESTAT and observed that since the petitioner is having an alternative remedy to file the appeal before the CESTAT, it is for them to file such appeal and canvass all the points.

Concluding that the High Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition only on the reason of availability of alternative remedy, the same was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-984-HC-MAD-ST)