9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing alternate remedy Rule in fiscal law statutes. To be noted, Greatship case is a matter arising under Maharashtra Value Added Tax, 2002, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and it is in that context that alternate remedy rule was considered. In the light of the narrative and dispositive reasoning set out thus far, both the points urged by learned counsel for writ petitioner does not find favour with this Court in the case on hand. This means curtains are dropped qua the captioned writ petition but it is open to the writ petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy under Section 107 subject of course to Limitation and pre-deposit if any. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per under section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017. On verification of the documents filed by the dealer vide reference 3rd cited, it is found that, the documents were not satisfactory to prove their claim of ITC in TRN-1 form. And The dealer also not attended the personal hearing dated: 24.06.2021 and 08.07.2021.' 9. To be noted, numbers have not been assigned to paragraphs in the impugned order. Be that as it may, adverting to aforesaid paragraph, learned counsel submits that in the course of scrutiny under Section 61 of C-GST Act, notice was issued, writ petitioner responded and the same has been considered. More importantly, learned Revenue counsel drew the attention of this Court to the last sentence and submitted that the writ petitioner has not attended the personal hearings on 24.06.2021 and 08.07.2021. This means that though the writ petitioner was not put on notice (SCN) before the impugned order but the writ petitioner has also been given a personal hearing. 10. Learned counsel for writ petitioner enters upon a disputation/contestation qua the above submission and submits that the writ petitioner was not put on notice as regards a personal hearing. This turns entirely on dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... course may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and 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) 16. In K.C.Mathew case, relevant paragraph is paragraph 10 and the same reads as follows: '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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 was CA 5121/2021 7 not appropriate for the High Court to entertain a writ petition. The assessment of facts would have to be carried out by the appellate authority. As a matter of fact, the High Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent.' 19. Relevant paragraph in Greatship case law is Paragraph 16 and the same reads as follows: '16. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the decisions of this Court by the learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent, referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
