9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority to review its own order. 2. Validity of the impugned order. 3. Availability of alternative remedy. Analysis: Jurisdiction of the authority to review its own order: The petitioner sought a certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order issued by the 1st respondent canceling the permission granted earlier. The petitioner argued that the respondent, having granted permission initially, was not justified in passing the impugned order. The petitioner contended that the authority, being quasi-judicial, could not review its own order without statutory power of review. The court referenced various decisions to support this argument, emphasizing that unless expressly conferred by statute, the power of review cannot be assumed or exercised by authorities. The court found that in the absence of any specific provision granting the authority the power to review its own order, the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction and was patently illegal. Validity of the impugned order: The impugned order was issued based on the petitioner's alleged failure to enter the input in the required register as per Central Excise Rules. The court noted that the very objective of the "Modvat" scheme was to eliminate the cascading effect of Central Excise Duty levies. The petitioner argued that the authority should have considered the claim holistically instead of deeming the permission granted as contrary to law. The court found that since there was no provision showing that the authority had the power to review its own order, the impugned order could not be sustained. Availability of alternative remedy: The respondents argued that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal instead of filing a writ petition. However, the court held that the mere existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the petitioner from seeking relief through a writ petition, especially when the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of prudence and practice, not a rule of law. Given the circumstances and the prolonged pendency of the case, the court rejected the contention that the petitioner should have pursued an appeal. In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order, and dismissed the related application. The court held that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction, and the petitioner was entitled to succeed based on the lack of statutory power for the authority to review its own order.
|
