9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 25 the writ Court should be slow to entertain it. An appellate authority is better equipped to deal with the contentions of the petitioner given the procedural powers conferred on it - The Appellate authority is empowered to deal with all questions raised by the petitioner including the legality and or validity of the order of Adjudicating authority. In the backdrop of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Act of 2002 and the dicta of the Hon ble Apex Court, this court is of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained. More so when the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority against the order of Adjudicating Authority, confirming of order of provisional attachment. Application disposed off. - WPA 11161 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 27-3-2023 - RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Reshmi Ghosh, Mr. S. S. Chini,. For the ED : Mr. Phiroze Edulji, Mr. A. Pandey, Mr. A. Pandey, Mr. S. Singh, The petitioner is aggrieved by an order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd. [1919 AC 368 : (1918-19) All ER Rep 61 (HL)] and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant Co. Ltd. [1935 AC 532 (PC)] and Secy. of State v. Mask Co. [(1939-40) 67 IA 222] It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 49. The views expressed in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [(1983) 2 SCC 433 : 1983 SCC (Tax) 131] were echoed in CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75] in the following words: (SCC p. 264, para 3) 3. Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act. 51. In CCT v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 688] the Court reversed an order passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing the show-cause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa Sales Tax Act by observing that the High Court had completely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a large number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative remedy. On the same lines is an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of H. P.-Vs.-Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited Ors., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 499. At paragraph 17, 20 21 it was held as follows:- 17. We shall first deal with the plea regarding alternative remedy as raised by the appellant State. Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the juris ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n it. An appellate authority is better equipped to deal with the contentions of the petitioner given the procedural powers conferred on it. The Appellate authority is empowered to deal with all questions raised by the petitioner including the legality and or validity of the order of Adjudicating authority. In the backdrop of the availability of the efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 25 of the Act of 2002 and the dicta of the Hon ble Apex Court referred to hereinabove, this court is of the view that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be entertained. More so when the petitioner has already filed an appeal under Section 25 before the Appellate Authority against the order of Adjudicating Authority, confirming of order of provisional attachment. It is made absolutely clear that the Appellate Authority shall proceed independently in the matter and all allegations are left open to be considered by the Appellate Authority, who will deal with the matter in accordance with law and the laws settled by the Division Benches of this Court and the Hon ble Supreme Court of India. WPA No. 11161 of 202 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
