9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1059X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner on March 19, 2010 and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to pass orders after affording opportunity to the petitioner for a personal hearing. Heard Mr. A.S. Mujibur Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.R. Janarthanam, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner challenges the order of the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), dated February 9, 2010. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer passed an order in respect of the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97 and demanded tax and penalty. Challenging the assessment order and penalty levied, the appeal has been filed to the Appellate Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to mockery and abuse of judicial proceedings. Insofar as the merits of the case challenging the order of the first respondent/appellate authority is concerned, this court is not inclined to go into the factual aspects of the case at this juncture. When there is an effective alternative remedy provided under law, the petitioner has to pursue the same. No case has been made out to invoke the extraordinary remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the honourable apex court in State of H.P. v. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd [2005] 142 STC 1 (SC), to point out as to when this court will exercise its jurisdiction under article 226 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istant Collector of Customs reported in [1987] 30 ELT 641 (SC) in which, it is held as follows: "After the matter was heard for some time and it was indicated that the customs authorities, acting under the Act, were justified in disallowing the claim for refund as they were bound by the period of limitation provided therefor under section 27(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, learned counsel for the appellant sought leave to withdraw the appeal. We accord their leave to withdraw the appeal but make it clear that the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal suffers from no infirmity. If really the payment of the duty was under a mistake of law, the appellant may seek recourse to such alternative remedy as it may be advis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
