M/S V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Vikas Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT TAX No. - 365 of 2026

¶3

M/S V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Vikas Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India Thru. Secy. Finance Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aarsh Raj Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Anuj Singh, Kuldeepak Nag (K.D.Nag)

¶8

Court No. - 8

¶9

HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Aarsh Raj, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anuj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 and Sri Mohd. Asad, learned counsel, who has filed memo of appearance (which is taken on record) of Sri Paavan Awasthi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.

¶11

The present writ petition has been preferred with the following prayers:-

¶12

"i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Review order No. 02 of 2021 dated 04.02.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow, contained as Annexure No. 1 with this writ petition.

¶13

ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order-in-Appeal dated 24.01.2022 passed by the Opposite Party no. 3/Commissioner (Appeals) in Orders-inAppeal No. 29-ST/Applicant/LKO/2022 and the Final Order dated 30.09.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 4/Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad in Service Tax Appeal No. 70439 of 2023 [M/s V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Lucknow], contained as Annexure No. 2 and Annexure No. 3 respectively with this writ petition.

¶14

iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties concerned to allow the CENVAT credit of Rs. 20,87,562/- in accordance to the Order dated 20.10.2020 passed by the Opposite Party No. 5/Deputy Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise Division-III."

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground of availability of appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1944), which was omitted in the year 2005 but it has again been incorporated in pursuance of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶16

WTAX No. 365 of 2026

¶17

2

¶18

Madras Bar Association vs. Union of India & Anr. [(2014) 10 SCC 1] . In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. [(2012 11 SCC 651].

¶19

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in para 4 of the judgment which has been relied by learned counsel for the respondents, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has carved out the exception and has held that the writ petition is maintainable. These exceptions are that 'the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice.'

¶20

He has further submitted that in the present case, the order has been passed without jurisdiction and in contravention of principles of natural justice.

¶21

On being asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the authorities who have passed the orders impugned are having the jurisdiction to entertain the review and the appeal, he has submitted that they were the competent authority, so it cannot be said that the orders which are under challenge in the present writ petition are without jurisdiction.

¶22

On being further asked from the learned counsel for the petitioner what is the violation of principles of natural justice whether at the time of passing of these orders, any opportunity was provided to him or not, he has submitted that the opportunity was provided but while passing the appellate order, on one issue, the appellate order is silent. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment and order dated 25.01.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Tax No. 276 of 2020 (M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. Through Its Director, Jawahar Lal Jain vs. State of U.P. through Secretary, Institutional Finance, U.P. Govt. and 2 Ors.).

¶23

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, it is found that the orders have been passed by the authorities who were competent under the Act and the petitioner was given opportunity by issuing notice etc. The judgment relied by the petitioner in the case of M/S Associated Switch Gears and Projects Ltd. (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case for the reason that the said judgment is on the point that the appeal was rejected on the new ground which is not a part of the show cause notice but learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show the said submission from the records despite repeatedly asked from him and in reply, he has submitted that on the third point in the review, the

¶24

WTAX No. 365 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

appellate order is silent, it hardly amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

¶27

In view of facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove and in pursuance of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd. (supra) which has been passed after considering the judgment in the case of Munshi Ram vs. Municipal Committee, Chheharta [(1979) 3 SCC 83] and the judgment in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433] in which it has been held that where the remedy is provided, it is to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way.

¶28

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy to file an appeal before High Court under Section 35-G of the Act, 1944.

¶29

(Manish Kumar,J.)

¶30

March 16, 2026

¶31

Nitesh

¶32

Digitally signed by :- NITESH KUMAR TEWARY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

M/S V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Vikas Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S V.B. Digital Distribution Cable Network Thru. Sole Proprietor Mr. Vikas Singh v. Union of India Thru. Secy. Finance Ministry of Finance Deptt. Revenue New Delhi and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Delinquent Juvenile in Case Crime No. 70/2025 , Thru. His Mother Seema Devi @ Seema vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 4 Others

Savitri vs Miss Shreya, Sub Divisional Officer, Bikapur Dist. Ayodhya

Vinay vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Abid Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Renu Sharma vs Anil Kumar Presiding Officer Cental Govt. Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Kendriya Bhawan Lko.