JUDGMENT : 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner K2K Infrastructure (India) Private Limited on 06.01.2016 against the Show Cause Notice Annexure ‘D’ dated 13.10.2014 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Service Tax, interest and penalty thereon be not imposed upon the petitioner for rendering the taxable services for the period 01.01.2013 till 31.12.2013. 2. The petitioner submitted objections to the said show cause notice, whereupon the respondent-Commissioner of Central Tax, Bengaluru, has passed the Order-in-original on 10.10.2017 which is sought to be assailed by way of amendment Application No.1/2017 filed during the pendency of this petition on 27.11.2017. 3. The grounds urged in the Writ Petition for assailing the said show cause notice and the Order-in-original are that the petitioner had opted for a Service Tax Voluntary Compliance Encouragement Scheme, 2013 (VCES Scheme 2013) announced by the respondent-Union of India, for payment of due Service Tax liability of the assessee in installments before the end of December 2013 and June 2014 in two installments. The petitioner filed its Declaration in the prescribed form VCES-1 vide Annexure ‘C1’ disclosing the Service Tax liability to the extent of Rs.4,68,46,500/- along with Education Cess and Secondary & Higher Education Cess with a total tax liability disclosed to the extent of Rs.4,82,51,895/-. The said Declaration was furnished by the petitioner-Company on 31.12.2013 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the due payments under the said Scheme were also made by the petitioner-Company and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted in the Writ Petition that the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent-authority vide Annexure ‘D’ on 13.10.2014 is contrary to the provisions of the said VCES Scheme, as the Scheme provided, for an immunity from penalty to the petitioner-Company. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for quashing of the impugned Show Cause Notice Annexure ‘D’ dated 13.10.2014 as well as the impugned order, later on passed in pursuance to the said show cause notice on 10.10.2017. 5. Per contra, Mr. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore prayed for quashing of the impugned Show Cause Notice Annexure ‘D’ dated 13.10.2014 as well as the impugned order, later on passed in pursuance to the said show cause notice on 10.10.2017. 5. Per contra, Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-Department urged before the Court that the impugned show cause notice as well as the Order-in-original sought to be assailed in the present Writ Petition did not even pertain to the period for which the said Voluntary Scheme was availed by the petitioner and admittedly, the period covered by the said Declaration under the Scheme was 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2012, which fact has been admitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well, even though there is no period as such stipulated in the declaration VCES-1 Annexure ‘C1’ on the record. 6. The learned Counsel for the Revenue, therefore, argued that the Order-in-original passed in pursuance of the impugned show cause notice which was challenged in the present Writ Petition vide Annexure ‘D’ dated 13.10.2014 clearly discloses the fact of the petitioner, was filing its Declaration under the ‘VCES Scheme 2013’ vide paragraph-4 of the impugned order that since the said Service Tax of the petitioner was admitted only for the period upto December 2012, that the show cause notice as well as the order dated 10.10.2017 was for the subsequent period commencing from January 2013 and it had nothing to do with the ‘VCES Scheme 2013’ availed by the petitioner. He also submitted that the said Declaration furnished under the Scheme itself was accepted by the concerned authority but the immunity from penalty for subsequent period, cannot be granted. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards paragraphs-4 and 24.3 of the impugned order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the respondent-Commissioner. The same are quoted below for ready reference: “4. It further appeared during the course of preliminary verification of documents that M/s. K2K had opted for VCES, 2013 to discharge their Service Tax liability for the period upto 31-12-2012. It appeared from the VCES-1 and VCES-2 forms that M/s K2K have declared Service Tax liability amounting to Rs.4,82,51,895/- vide their VCES-1 dated 30-12-2013 and acknowledgement has been issued by the department vide VCES-2 dated 31-12-2013 for the said Service Tax dues. It appeared from the VCES-1 and VCES-2 forms that M/s K2K have declared Service Tax liability amounting to Rs.4,82,51,895/- vide their VCES-1 dated 30-12-2013 and acknowledgement has been issued by the department vide VCES-2 dated 31-12-2013 for the said Service Tax dues. As M/s K2K have already filed VCES declaration for the period up to December 2012, the investigation carried out by DGCEI is limited to the period from 1-1-2013 onwards, which is beyond the scope of said scheme of VCES, 2013. xxxxx 24.3 In the instant case, on the basis of discussions at para 22 above, it has already been held that the demand of service tax raised in the instant show cause notice is liable to confirmed in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994, in the light of suppression of facts and contravention of the provisions of the Act/Rules, with intent to evade payment of Service Tax. Also, in the instant case, I find that the assessee has collected the Service Tax from the clients and not paid to the Govt. account, which has also been admitted by Shri K.G. Nandakumar, Asst. General Manager, Accounts and Finance in his statement dated 6.03.2014. They have also not filed the ST3 returns during the impugned period. Considering the gravity of offence committed in the evasion of tax involved in this SCN, which has been detailed in the SCN and also discussed at length supra, the case warrants imposition of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. I find that imposition of mandatory penalty is justified when malafide intention is proved as ruled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Dharmendra Textile Processors Vs. UOI 2008 (231) ELT 3 (SC). The law in this regard is very clear and the only intention of the assessee to suppress these facts was to evade payment of service tax. As such, the proposal for penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sustainable and fully justified as they have deliberately suppressed the vital facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax.” 7. Mr. As such, the proposal for penalty under the provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is sustainable and fully justified as they have deliberately suppressed the vital facts from the department with an intent to evade payment of Service Tax.” 7. Mr. Jeevan J. Neeralgi, learned Counsel has further submitted that the said Order-in-original dated 10.10.2017 is further appealable to the Customs, Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and the challenge to the said order cannot be laid in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is satisfied with the argument raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be entitled to immunity from penalty as per ‘VCES Scheme 2013’ and therefore, the impugned show cause notice and the order passed by the Commissioner for the period commencing from January 2013 is misconceived. The due Service Tax liability for the period upto December 2012, for which the petitioner had filed the Declaration in VCES-1 Form vide Annexure ‘C1’ cannot have any relation with the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The liability of Service Tax depends upon the taxable event, which is the event or action of rendering of the services. The petitioner is engaged in the business of rendering taxable services of civil construction and civil contractors providing services relating to structural and civil works to various Builders and Developers. There is no dispute before this Court about the admitted tax liability for Service Tax of the petitioner and the Voluntary Scheme availed by the petitioner was only to square up his admitted Service Tax liability for the past period from 01.10.2007 to 31.12.2012, which payment was allowed to be made in installments in a staggered manner before December 2013 and June 2014, as per the provisions of the said Scheme. That Declaration and Scheme itself can of course, have no effect on the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The said Scheme availed by the petitioner having no effect in the impugned assessment proceedings for the subsequent period commencing from January 2013 has been duly discussed in paragraph-4 of the impugned order quoted above. 9. That Declaration and Scheme itself can of course, have no effect on the subsequent period commencing from January 2013. The said Scheme availed by the petitioner having no effect in the impugned assessment proceedings for the subsequent period commencing from January 2013 has been duly discussed in paragraph-4 of the impugned order quoted above. 9. This Court finds no reason to take a different view of the matter and stretch the benefit of the Scheme for the petitioner for the period after December 2012. Therefore, the challenge laid to the impugned show cause notice and the order passed by the Commissioner in the present Writ Petition on that basis is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The same is accordingly rejected. 10. The impugned order is also appealable before the Appellate Tribunal as per the provisions of Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, if the assessee is aggrieved by the said order on its own merits, the petitioner-Company is free to avail the Appeal remedy under Section 86 of the Act and in view of the availability of the effective alternative remedy to the petitioner-Company, this Court is not inclined to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the present Writ Petition. The same is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the main Writ Petition, I. As accordingly stand disposed of.