9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 963X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck transfer 'with defective documents'. The first respondent did not state as to why, in his opinion, the documents produced by the appellant were defective. The first respondent has not recorded as to why the documents produced by the appellant cannot be accepted. If any clarification is required, the same could have been called for. Therefore, it is clear that the compounding notice dated 13.3.2016 is not only a non-speaking notice, but a notice in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the grounds raised by the appellant have not been considered by the first respondent - The same mistake was committed by the second respondent the Revisional Authority, who is in the cadre of Joint Commissioner. A revisional power cannot be akin to appellate power and at best, the Revisional Authority can consider as to whether there was any procedural error committed by the Lower Authority, but would not be justified in re-appreciating the entire facts - This issue can never be set right by the Second Revisional Authority, who appears to be an officer in the cadre of Additional Commissioner. Having been satisfied with the facts and circumstances of the case, the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Judge has not given any consequential directions nor made any observation as to whether the appellant has any other remedy as against the order passed by the first respondent dated 13.3.2016. 6. We had an occasion to consider the correctness of similar observations made by the Writ Court in the case of Mahindra Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Joint Commissioner (CT) (Appeals) [W.A.No. 493 of 2021 dated 18.2.2021] . After taking note of the various decisions, we have held that there is no absolute bar in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India. The relevant portions in the said judgment read thus : 5. In our respectful view, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision has not held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an absolute bar. We are of the said view after noting the observations/findings rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following paragraphs : 11. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is: whether the High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent? As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all. 6. On a reading of the above extracted paragraphs, it is seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Thansingh Nathmal, held that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition. Further, in paragraph 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. In addition, in paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that when the High Court refuses to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, it would be necessary for the Court to record that there was no case of violation of the principles of natural justice or non compliance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecide the issue; and if there has been violation of the principles of natural justice. 8. Bearing in mind the above legal principles, we have examined the order passed by the second respondent dated 06.2.2017. We have no hesitation to hold that the perversity writs large on the face of the order dated 06.2.2017. The second respondent has virtually abdicated his power as a Revisional Authority and all that he has done was extracting the entire objections filed by the appellant and held that the Roving Squad Officer collected one time compounding fee under Section 72(1)(a) of the Act and that therefore, the correct compounding fee had to be fixed and accordingly remitted the matter back to the first respondent. 9. There is absolutely no discussion as to how the grounds raised by the appellant were not tenable and as to how the documents, which were filed by the appellant, were not admissible or sustainable. We have also seen the order of detention passed by the first respondent, in which, one of the grounds of detention was that the goods were transported from Mumbai to Chennai in the name of stock transfer 'with defective documents'. The first respondent did not state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f documents enclosed or produced for verification of branches and the relation between the other dealer involvement. 14. In our considered view, the first respondent has not recorded as to why the documents produced by the appellant cannot be accepted. If any clarification is required, the same could have been called for. Therefore, it is clear that the compounding notice dated 13.3.2016 is not only a non-speaking notice, but a notice in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the grounds raised by the appellant have not been considered by the first respondent. 15. The same mistake was committed by the second respondent the Revisional Authority, who is in the cadre of Joint Commissioner. We have observed that the order is devoid of any reasons. Therefore, not only the compounding notice, but also the detention order are arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, this Court is not denuded of its jurisdiction to interfere with the same. 16. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents vehemently contends that in terms of Section 57 of the Act, the second revisional power is vested with the Addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
