2005 (3) TMI 160 - HC - Central Excise

Order of CEGAT challenged before HC by filing writ which was dismissed by Single Judge on merit - alternative remedy against the order of the CEGAT by filing reference application u/s 35G was available with appellant it is well-settled that when there is an alternative remedy ordinarily writ jurisdiction of this Court under should not be invoked therefore, Single Judge should not have gone into merits of the case and should have dismissed the wit petition on ground of alternative remedy

Summary

Issues:
Entertainment of writ petition despite alternative remedies under Central Excise Act.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court, delivered by Chief Justice Markandey Katju, and Justice D. Murugesan, addressed the issue of entertaining a writ petition despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Central Excise Act. The Court expressed surprise that the writ petition was entertained, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies in tax matters. The Court cited various decisions by the Supreme Court, such as Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar v. Dunlop India Limited, highlighting the principle that when alternative remedies exist, the writ jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked. The Court reiterated that statutory remedies should not be short-circuited, especially in tax proceedings, and emphasized the need for self-discipline among judges to uphold this principle.

The judgment referred to several Supreme Court decisions, including G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd., A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ. in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, and C.A. Ibraham v. ITO, emphasizing the necessity of exhausting hierarchical appeals provided by statutes before resorting to writ jurisdiction. The Court also cited cases like Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh and Punjab National Bank v. D.C. Krishna, where the Supreme Court held that if a statute provides for a revision or appeal remedy, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked. Additionally, the judgment referenced Union of India v. T.R. Verma, highlighting the requirement for litigants to pursue equally efficacious remedies before seeking prerogative writs.

Furthermore, the Madras High Court mentioned a decision by the Allahabad High Court in M/s. Khandelwal Soya Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others, where a writ petition challenging provisional assessment orders under the U.P. Trade Tax Act was dismissed due to the availability of alternative remedies under the Act. The Supreme Court's dismissal of a Special Leave Petition against this judgment was also noted. Ultimately, the Madras High Court dismissed the writ petition and writ appeal on the grounds of alternative remedies under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that the observations made by the single Judge should not influence statutory authorities if the appellant chooses to exercise alternative remedies under the Act.