9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 1198 - HC - GSTMaintainability of petition - whether this Court should at all entertain the instant writ petition taking into account that an efficacious alternative remedy is available? - HELD THAT - This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VERSUS UCO BANK AND OTHERS 2024 (4) TMI 466 - SUPREME COURT (LB) where it would be seen that the High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The Supreme Court further emphasized that this Rule should be applied with great rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. It was further observed that though the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still the courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved. Let this Court take note of the case made out by the petitioner. From the facts narrated above, it would be seen that the petitioner received the show cause notice dated 22.10.2021, but the petitioner did not take that opportunity of submitting a reply. It is further seen that the petitioner was duly given the opportunity of personal hearing, however, the petitioner did not avail such opportunity. Under such circumstances, the question of violation of the principles of natural justice do not arise. In addition to that, the other parameters where the writ petition can be entertained is not met in the instant proceedings. This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the instant writ petition shall not prejudice the petitioner, if any appeal is filed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to show-cause notice and Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2024. 2. Availability of an alternative remedy. 3. Violation of principles of natural justice. 4. Parameters for entertaining a writ petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2021 and an Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2024, demanding service tax and penalty. The petitioner received the show-cause notice but did not respond, despite being given opportunities for a hearing. The impugned order confirmed the demand, and the petitioner was informed of the right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process. 2. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that a High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in matters involving recovery of taxes and public money. The court highlighted the importance of self-imposed restraint in such cases. Another Supreme Court judgment was cited, stating circumstances where a writ court can intervene despite the availability of an alternative remedy, such as enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, challenge to the vires of an Act, or pure questions of law. 3. The petitioner argued that without relief from the High Court, they would be unable to present documentary evidence during the appellate stage. However, the court found that the petitioner had opportunities to respond and submit documents earlier, which were not utilized. The court held that the petitioner could still present evidence during the appeal process, thus not warranting intervention through a writ petition. 4. Considering the facts presented and the legal precedents cited, the court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy, lack of violation of principles of natural justice, and failure to meet the parameters for intervention through a writ petition. The court clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prejudice the petitioner's right to appeal or raise objections to the impugned order within the legal framework.
|
