Madura Coats (P.) Ltd. vs Union of India

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J—The order dated 24.6.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. Nos. 43152/2011 & 43201-204/2011 is the subject matter of these intra-Court appeals. The appellant-writ petitioner was issued with a show-cause notice dated 12.10.2011 by the second respondent-Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore demanding certain amount of service tax. The said show-cause notice dated 12.10.2011 was assailed by the appellant herein before the learned Single Judge by filing the writ petitions. The writ petitioner also sought for declaration that the Explanation to Section 65(55a) r/w. Section 65(55b) and Section 65(105)(zzr) of the Finance Act, 1994 pertaining to the definition of ''Intellectual Property Right'' and ''Intellectual Property Service'', is in violation of Articles 14, 19(i)(g), 265 and Entry 54 of List II of the VII Schedule to the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge has refused to go into the merits of the matter by concluding that it is open for the writ petitioner to reply to the show-cause notice.

Virtually what was challenged before the learned Single Judge is the notice issued by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore. Hence, it is open for the writ petitioner to whom the show-cause notice is issued, to file statement of objections and to have its say in the matter. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, AIR 1999 SC 22 : (1998) 7 JT 243 : (1998) 5 SCALE 655 : (1998) 8 SCC 1 : (1998) 2 SCR 359 Supp : (1998) AIRSCW 3345 : (1998) 8 Supreme 176 , the Apex Court has opined that the power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. The High Court, having regard to the facts of case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions, one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy, has been consistently held by the Supreme Court, not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.

The matter on hand does not fall within any of the above three categories. Even other wise, we are of the clear opinion that since it is open for the appellant herein to file its statement of objections and have its say in the matter, it is not necessary for this Court to enter into the merits of the matter at this stage. We find that the learned Single Judge is justified in dismissing the writ petitions by directing the writ petitioner to approach the very authority which has issued the show-cause notice to have its say in the matter by filing statement of objections.

Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

We make it clear that all the contentions raised in the writ petitions on merits of the matter are kept open to be urged before the concerned authority or before this Court in future, if need be and if the appellant-writ petitioner so chooses.