9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Hon ble Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. Thus, it is clear that maintainability and entertainability are two different facets. Merely, because petition is maintainable , it creates no compulsion on the Writ Court to entertain it. If the petitioner has not raised any objection of limitation/jurisdiction before the Authority, he may raise all possible objections in his appeal memo before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is unable to show if he is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal, it will cause any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , for respondent No.3. 2. The challenge is mounted to the Order-in-Original dated 22.05.2024 whereby an adverse order is passed against the petitioner, a Chartered Accountant. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly submits that although, the impugned order is appealable under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the petition is maintainable because the impugned order is passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice. To bolster this, it is argued that when the petitioner was served with the show cause notice, in his reply, he requested to provide him his statement recorded previously by the Department. The said document/statement was provided to the petitioner only on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute . 7. Recently, the Hon ble Supreme Court in its judgment dated 10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others (2024) 4 S.C.R. 541 disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P. No. 5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition despite availability of alternative remedy. The Hon ble Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under: 15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... petition is maintainable , it creates no compulsion on the Writ Court to entertain it. If the petitioner has not raised any objection of limitation/jurisdiction before the Authority, he may raise all possible objections in his appeal memo before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is unable to show if he is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal, it will cause any palpable injustice to him. 9. Thus, in view of judgment of Supreme Court in R.S. Pandey (supra) and also in its recent judgment in PHR Invent Educational Society (supra), we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The petitioner has an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal. The petitioner may avail the said remedy. The time consumed before this Court shall not be count ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
