9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions made to the effect that this matter turns heavily on facts and supporting documents. Impugned orders are not interfered with and all questions on merits are left open. Impugned orders are not interfered with on the ground of availability of effective and efficacious alternate remedy - Petition disposed off. - W.P.Nos.16714 And 16764 of 2019 And W.M.P.Nos.16327 and 16373 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 17-6-2019 - Mr. Justice M. Sundar For the Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabakar For the Respondents : Ms.G.Dhanamadhri Government Advocate ORDER Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner is before this Court. Ms.G.Dhanamadhri, learned Governme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n an opportunity of personal hearing and therefore, there is violation of 'principles of natural justice' (NJP). 6. Learned counsel for Revenue, who accepted notice, adverting to the impugned orders points out that personal hearing was granted and the same has been articulated in the impugned order itself. Relevant paragraph in the impugned order dated 29.04.2019 reads as follows: 'Accordingly a notice was issued to the dealer in CST/130890/2016-17 on 30.04.2018 which was duly served on 30.04.2018. To this notice, the dealers have requested 90 days time to submit declaration forms and proof of exports. Personal hearing also made on 12.07.2018. Hence, a final notice was issued to the dealer on 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sallowed on Export sales at the rate of 14.5% has been shown as ₹ 14,05,75,648/-, which is erroneous and this is what was sought to be 10. As already alluded to supra, this is not supported by documents is, learned Revenue counsel's say. 11. Further trajectory of hearing today brings to light that rate of tax for UPS projected by the writ petitioner has been rejected originally on the ground that the product is not UPS at all. As far as the corrigendum to Form WW is concerned, this Court is of the view that it will serve the interest of Revenue as well as the writ petitioner, if the Appellate Authority is directed to look into the corrigendum to Form WW, if supporting documents are produced before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 13(4) of the Act. Upon a detailed consideration of the statutory scheme under the SARFAESI Act, the availability of remedy to the aggrieved under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: (SCC pp.123 128, Paras 43 55) 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t exceptions to alternate remedy rule have also been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and broadly they are a) Lack of jurisdiction; b) Violation of 'natural Justice principles' (NJP); c) Alternate remedy being illusory, ineffectual or not efficacious. 15. To be noted, the aforementioned adumbration is not exhaustive, but are only broad heads for the limited purpose of disposal of instant cases on hand. 16. In the instant cases, in the light of narrative thus far, this Court is of the considered view that this case does not fall under any of the aforesaid exceptions. It is nobody's case that the Authority has passed the impugned orders with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
