9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Challenge to demand raised by respondents after significant delay, availability of alternative remedy, jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226.
Issue 1: Delayed demand by respondents The appellant challenged a demand raised by the respondents nearly 16 years after the amount became due from the importer. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions citing the availability of an alternative remedy. The appellant contended that the demand, amounting to 46 lakhs of rupees, was barred by time and required deposit before filing an appeal. Issue 2: Availability of alternative remedy The High Court, in normal circumstances, refrains from interfering under Article 226 when an adequate alternative remedy is available. However, in this case, due to the significant delay in the demand and the substantial amount involved, the Supreme Court opined that the High Court should have exercised its jurisdiction to determine the merits of the case. The High Court was expected to consider both the contentions raised by the appellant and the respondents. Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the case back to the High Court for a decision on Special Civil Applications. The interim order was to continue until varied, and the High Court was directed to decide the matter in accordance with the law. The appeal was allowed, emphasizing the need for the High Court to address the issues raised by the parties.
|
