2020 (12) TMI 417 - HC - Service Tax

Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal available - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - HELD THAT - There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. Reliance can be placed in the case of ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT where it was held that Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. This Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129-A of the Finance Act, 1994
- Exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction
- Legal position regarding statutory remedies and Article 226 of the Constitution

Analysis:
The judgment by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.D. Audikesavalu of the Madras High Court pertains to a case where the Petitioner challenged an order passed by the Respondent under the Finance Act, 1994. The Respondent's order provided the Petitioner with the right to appeal under Section 129-A of the Act within three months, which the Petitioner did not utilize. Instead, the Petitioner directly filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. The Court noted the absence of an acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not availing the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal as provided under the Act.

The Court referred to the legal position elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise -vs- Dunlop India Limited [(1985) 1 SCC 260], emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures unless in exceptional circumstances where statutory remedies are inadequate. The Court highlighted that matters involving revenue, where statutory remedies are available, do not warrant the invocation of Article 226. The Court expressed concern over the misuse of Article 226 for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings, stressing the need to discourage such practices.

In light of the legal position and the Petitioner's failure to utilize the statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that it could not be entertained due to the Petitioner's failure to exhaust the available statutory remedy. The judgment also mentioned the closure of the connected Miscellaneous Petition without imposing any costs on either party.