9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d dispositive reasoning supra brings to light that none of the exceptions set out by Hon'ble Supreme Court qua Commercial Steel case [ 2021 (9) TMI 480 - SUPREME COURT] law is attracted in the case on hand. The sequitur to the discussion and dispositive reasoning thus far is, this is a fit case to relegate the writ petitioner to alternate remedy of statutory appeal inter alia under Section 246 A of IT Act subject of course to pre-deposit condition, if any and limitation. If the writ petitioner chooses to take the alternate remedy rule and file a statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider all the arguments/ grounds of appeal of the writ petitioner (including those raised in the instant writ petition) uninfluenced / untrammelled by observations made in this writ petition order. In other words, the appeal shall be considered and decided on its own merits and in accordance with law untrammelled by this order. The campaign of the writ petitioner against the impugned order comes to a conclusion, it fails and the sequitur is captioned main writ petition is dismissed albeit preserving the rights of the writ petitioner to prefer a statutory appeal, if so advis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is taken up. 6. Responding to the aforementioned two points urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner, learned Revenue counsel made submissions, a summation of which is as follows: (a) It cannot be gainsaid that one day time given qua SCN is too short as the writ petitioner has chosen to reply the very next day i.e., 22.09.2021 and it has also not chosen to ask for a personal hearing, though there is an option to ask for personal hearing vide sub-paragraph (c) of Paragraph 3 of SCN. (b) Adverting to the argument predicated on Section 144B(1)(xvi)(c) of IT Act, learned counsel submitted that in the light of automation it is quite feasible. Be that as it may, learned Revenue counsel pointed out that there is an alternate remedy available to the writ petitioner vide a statutory appeal under Section 246A of IT Act. 7. This Court now embarks upon the exercise of considering the rival submissions, setting out its discussion on the same and giving its dispositive reasoning qua conclusion. 8. The first point urged i.e., a mere one day time qua SCN under the normal circumstances would have certainly been a formidable argument, but not in this case qua writ petitioner as w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged.' ( Underlining made by this Court to supply emphasis and highlight ) Paragraph 10 of K.C.Mathew case '10. In Satyawati Tondon the High Court had restrained further proceedings under Section 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 ov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a writ jurisdiction should be an exception or in other words, only under exceptional circumstances where exception adumbrated therein attracted. To be noted, Commercial Steel case law was rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court very recently i.e., as recently as on 03.09.2021. Relevant paragraphs in Commercial Steel case law are Paragraphs 11 and 12, which read as follows: '11 The respondent had a statutory remedy under section 107. Instead of availing of the remedy, the respondent instituted a petition under Article 226. The existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar to the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. But a writ petition can be entertained in exceptional circumstances where there is: (i) a breach of fundamental rights; (ii) a violation of the principles of natural justice; (iii) an excess of jurisdiction; or (iv) a challenge to the vires of the statute or delegated legislation. 12 In the present case, none of the above exceptions was established. There was, in fact, no violation of the principles of natural justice since a notice was served on the person in charge of the conveyance. In this backdrop, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
