9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 261X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is done and it can be shown for good reason Court should interfere then notwithstanding alternative remedy, a writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice. Conclusion - Statutory pre-deposit requirements are generally binding unless gross injustice is clearly demonstrated. Petition disposed off. - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO Advocates appeared in this case : For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Kajal Sahoo, Advocate For the Opposite Parties: Mr. T.K. Satapathy, Sr. Standing Counsel JUDGMENT ARINDAM SINHA, J. 1. The writ petition was heard earlier on 16th August, 2024. We reproduce below paragraphs 1 to 5 from order made that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2024) 17 Centax 356 (Mad.). Paragraph-9 from the judgment is reproduced below. 9. From the above discussion I am of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set aside for the following reasons: a) Once the Discharge Certificate is issued by the Designated Committee it is not open to proceed with adjudication. b) The authority / power to revoke or cancel the Discharge Certificate on the premise that the material particulars furnished in the Discharge Certificate is false, lies with the exclusive jurisdiction of the Designated Committee. c) To assume Adjudicating Authority/Central Excise Officers to have the power to revoke or cancel Discharge Certificate issued by the Designated Committee which may comprise of officers superior in ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... phs 10 and 11 of the report. He points out, the Division Bench, relying on Manoranjan Chakraborty (supra) interfered in judicial review to waive the requisite pre-deposit. 3. In Manoranjan Chakraborty (supra) facts were that the High Court had by the judgment, under appeal before the Supreme Court, struck down the provisos to section 20 (1) and section 21 (2) of Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976. The provisos require fulfilling precondition for entertaining any appeal, as satisfaction obtained that amount of tax assessed or penalty levied has been paid. Further proviso is that the appellate authority may direct appellant to pay any lesser amount, not less than 50%. In those facts the Supreme Court said in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 as would appear fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it the respondent to pay any lesser amount than 50%. Nevertheless, the Court said, it was clear that if gross injustice is done and it can be shown for good reason Court should interfere then notwithstanding alternative remedy, a writ Court can in an appropriate case exercise its jurisdiction to do substantive justice. This was earlier said by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, reported in AIR 1999 SC 22. As such we respectfully disagree with view taken by the Jharkhand High Court in Bharat Ingots and Steel Co. (P.) Ltd. (supra). 5. At this stage Mr. Sahoo submits, his client is in involved circumstances inasmuch as it would appear from the audited balance sheets, it will be unable to put in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
