9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition against CEGAT order; Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35H of Central Excise Act; Invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Analysis: The High Court considered a writ petition challenging the order of CEGAT dated 23-12-2002. The court noted that the petitioner has an alternative remedy available under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court emphasized the principle that in tax matters, the alternative remedy provided by the statute should not be short-circuited. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, the court reiterated that when a statute provides a special remedy for enforcing rights or liabilities, that remedy must be pursued. The court highlighted that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked when there is an alternative remedy, especially in tax proceedings. The High Court further cited the Supreme Court's rulings in various cases to support the view that statutory remedies should be exhausted before resorting to writ jurisdiction, particularly in matters related to taxing statutes. The court referred to decisions such as G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd., and others, which emphasized the importance of following the hierarchy of appeals provided by the statute. Additionally, the court mentioned cases like Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh and Punjab National Bank v. D.C. Krishna, where the Supreme Court held that if a statute offers a remedy of revision or appeal, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. The court highlighted the Supreme Court's stance in Union of India v. T.R.Verma, emphasizing that when an equally efficacious alternative remedy is available, it is prudent to require the litigant to pursue that remedy before seeking intervention through a writ petition. In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis of the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act. The court relied on established legal principles and precedents to emphasize the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the court for extraordinary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
|
