9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ways be raised before the appellate authority. Simply styling the impugned order as being without jurisdiction or perverse is insufficient to circumvent the practice of exhausting alternate remedies. In Oberoi Constructions Ltd [ 2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] several decisions are summarised on exhausting alternate remedies. By following the reasoning in that decision instead of repeating it in this order, we are satisfied that no case is made out to depart from the usual practice of exhausting alternate remedies. It is declined to entertain this Petition and relegate the Petitioner to avail of the alternate appeal remedy by fulfilling the pre-deposit conditions - The Petition is disposed of. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed is without jurisdiction, perverse and illegal, this Court should either entertain the Petition or waive the requirement of pre-deposit. 5. Mr Mukhi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, also submitted that if this court waives the pre-deposit requirement, the Petitioner is not averse to instituting an appeal before the appellate authority. He also submitted that an appropriate order be made regarding the limitation period since the Petitioner instituted this Petition within the limitation period prescribed for initiating an appeal before the appellate authority. 6. Mr Mukhi submitted that the impugned order is without jurisdiction because the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs ("CBIC") circulars, which were binding, have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvenience of reference: "That though the alternative remedy of filling of appeal is available to the petitioners by making a pre-deposit of 10% of the impugned demand. However, the alternative remedy of appeal is not equally efficacious as the impugned demand has been raised without jurisdiction and hence, perverse and illegal. To avail the alternate remedy of appeal also imposes an additional compliance of 10% of pre-deposit which would be highly unjustified as the issue is prima facie without jurisdiction and without authority of law. Moreover, the petitioner is not in position to make pre-deposit of 10% of the impugned as it is facing undue hardship on account of financial constraints. Hence, the petitioner is left with no alternative ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
