9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 433X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aspect of procedural impropriety, violation of principles of natural justice, un-reasoned order and other aspects raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In U.P. STATE SPINNING CO. LTD. VERSUS R.S. PANDEY AND ANR. [ 2005 (9) TMI 634 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that unless serious jurisdictional error is pointed out and it is established that if the petitioner is relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will cause palpable injustice to him, no interference can be made. We are constrained to observe that we have repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why we should not relegate him to avail alternative remedy, no answer was forthcoming - the Apex Court has considered the entire legal journey on the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in show-cause notices, which were issued beyond the statutory period of limitation of thirty months under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act. (ii) The show-cause notices were served through E-mail whereas the Act nowhere prescribes any such mode of service through E-mail (iii) the petitioner filed his replies and placed reliance on certain High Courts and Supreme Court judgments. Since the impugned order is not a reasoned order and all the contentions raised by the petitioner were not considered by the first respondent by placing reliance on two judgments i.e. Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle and others (2008) 16 VST 181 (SC) and Ravi Gupta Vs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi and another (2009) 22 VST 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Writ Petition can be entertained despite availability of statutory alternative remedy in certain situations like; i) When violation of principles of natural justice takes place. ii) When fundamental rights are breached. iii) When the vires of the provision itself is called in question iv) When the order passed by an incompetent authority, This judgment of Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was considered by the Supreme Court in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264 and it was opined as under:- 17. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. The Court clearly observed that, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
