9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 626X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off. - W.P. No. 15440 of 2019 & W.M.P. No. 15387 of 2019 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2019 - M. Sundar, J. Shri Ravi for M/s. Gupta and Ravi, for the Petitioner. Shri G. Karthikeyan, Assistant Solicitor General and Pramod Kumar Chopda, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. ORDER Mr. Ravi, Learned Counsel of M/s. Gupta and Ravi (Law Firm) forsole writ petitioner, Mr. Pramod Kumar Chopda, Learned Standing Counsel for first repsondent and Mr. G. Karthikeyan, Learned Assistant Solicitor General of India on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 are before this Court. 2. With the consent of all the aforesaid counsel i.e., writ petitioner s cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned SCN on the primary ground that the first respondent is not clear, as to whether circular issued by the third respondent Board in this regard i.e., Circular No. 83/2003-Cus., dated 18-9-2003, applies to the case on hand or not. 4. In the aforesaid backdrop, Learned Counsel for writ petitioner submitted that the impugned SCN says that aforesaid circular being Circlar No. 83/2003-Cus., dated 18-9-2003 (hereinafter said circular ) appears to be not applicable in this case post GST era. Learned counsel for writ petitioner submitted that there is a doubt in the mind of the first respondent as to whether said circular will not be applicable post GST era i.e., Post 1-7-2017. 5. Responding to the aforesaid submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere in such a matter. 7. With regard to rule of discretion, two judgments are of relevance and they are Satyawati Tandon case [United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110] and K.C. Mathew case [Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85]. Though Satyawati Tandon case and K.C. Mathew case pertain to alternate remedy, Hon ble Supreme Court has held that alternate remedy is essentially not an absolute rule. It is a rule of discretion and it is not a rule of compulsion, but it should be applied with utmost rigour when i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
