9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TRUCTION LTD. VERSUS STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [ 2016 (3) TMI 1435 - SUPREME COURT] , has held that when statutory appeal is provided then the said remedy has to be availed. In the case of M/S GODREJ SARA LEE LTD. VERSUS THE EXCISE AND TAXATION OFFICERCUM- ASSESSING AUTHORITY ORS. [ 2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT] , the Apex Court has held that High Court can only interfere in the matters when disputed question of law are involved and not in the question of facts. In the present case, no disputed question of law is involved. Conclusion - The writ petitions cannot be entertained, when a statutory remedy is available unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. The principles of natural justice do not automatically require a personal hear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have approached this Court by filing the instant petition. To buttress his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation officer-cum-Assessing Authority and others, reported in (2023)109 GSTR 402. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The Apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2014)15 SCC 44 has held that when a statute provides for statutory appeal, the said remedy is to be availed by the litigating parties. 6. In the case of Hameed Kunju vs. Nazim, reported in (2017)8 SCC 611, the Apex Court has held that any petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court has while doing this exercise proceeded on the basis of surmises. However, since we are inclined to relegate the respondent to the pursuit of the alternate statutory remedy under Section 107, this Court makes no observation on the merits of the case of the respondent. 9. In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has held that High Court can only interfere in the matters when disputed question of law are involved and not in the question of facts. In the present case, no disputed question of law is involved. 10. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of the law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not find it proper to entertain this petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to avail the alternative remedy in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
