9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (4) TMI 187 - HC - VAT and Sales TaxMaintainability of petition - whether there is an absolute bar to entertain the petition on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner - HELD THAT - There is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition, we are of the view that the decision of the learned Single Judge in MAHINDRA MAHINDRA LTD. VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (CT) APPEALS, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (CT) - II, LARGE TAX PAYERS UNIT, CHENNAI-8 2021 (3) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in holding as if there is a blanket ban for entertaining a writ petition cannot be countenanced. The matter is remanded to the Assessing Officer for a fresh consideration - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Interpretation of the legal position regarding entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India when alternative remedies are available. Analysis: The High Court of Madras heard a case where writ appeals were filed against a common order dated 19.11.2020. The appeals were filed by the dealer and were directed against the said order. The counsel for both parties submitted that the relief sought in the appeals was covered by a previous decision in the dealer's own case. The High Court referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the power of the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved party. The Court must exercise self-imposed restraint in such cases. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should not disregard statutory limitation periods for appeals and should not entertain writ petitions as a matter of course when the statutory period for redressal of grievances has expired. The Court must consider whether there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or non-compliance with statutory requirements before entertaining a writ petition. The Supreme Court set out parameters for the High Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, including unfairness, unreasonableness, perversity, lack of jurisdiction, and violation of natural justice by the Statutory Authority. The High Court also referred to a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, emphasizing that the jurisdiction of High Courts and the Supreme Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of The Constitution of India should be exercised consistent with legislative intent and the rule of law. The High Court concluded that there is no absolute bar for entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 and set aside the impugned order based on the legal position established by the Supreme Court. As a result, the High Court allowed the writ appeals, set aside the common impugned order, including penalties and garnishee orders, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Assessing Officer was directed to provide a hearing to the appellant's representative, review the records, and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the law. No costs were awarded, and the connected CMPs were closed.
|
