Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 989 (ALL)

Goodearth Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. C. E. G. A. T.

2004-05-10

K.N.OJHA, MARKANDEY KATJU

body2004
( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed against the impugned order of CEGAT dated 23-12-2002, copy of which is Annexure-A to the writ petition. ( 2 ) IN our opinion, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing a reference application under section 35h of the Central Excise Act and hence we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. ( 3 ) IT has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that in tax matters, there should not be any short-circuiting of the alternative remedy under the statute. ( 4 ) IT is well settled that when there is an alternative remedy ordinarily writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be invoked. This principle applies with greater force regarding tax proceedings. As observed by the "supreme Court in Titaghur Paper mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa AIR1983 SC 603 , [1983 ]142 ITR663 (SC ), 1983 (1 )SCALE437 , (1983 )2 SCC433 , [1983 ]2 SCR743 , [1983 ]53 STC315 (SC )"where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of". ( 5 ) A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd. AIR1952 SC 192 , [1952 ]1 SCR583 held that as the Motor Vehicles act is a self contained code and itself provides for a forum for appeal/revision, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters relating to its provisions. A similar view was taken in Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. AIR1985 sc 330 , 1985 (4 )ECC103 (SC ), 1985 ECR4 (NULL ), 1985 (19 )ELT22 (SC ), [1985 ]154 itr172 (SC ), 1984 (2 )SCALE819 , (1985 )1 SCC260 , [1985 ]2 SCR190 , 1985 (17 )UJ368 (SC ). ( 6 ) IN Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court observed: article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. ( 6 ) IN Asst. Collector of Central Excise v. Dunlop India Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court observed: article 226 is not meant to short circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations, as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. ( 7 ) IN C. A. Ibraham v. ITO AIR1961 SC 609 , [1961 ]41 ITR425 (SC ), [1961 ]2 SCR765 , H. B. Gandhi v. Gopinath and Sons 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC 312 and in Karnataka chemical Industries v. Union of India 2000 (69 )ECC25 (SC ), 1999 (113 )ELT17 (SC ), 1999 (4 )SCALE420 , (2000 )10 SCC13 the Supreme Court held that where there is a hierarchy of appeals provided by the statute the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction. All these decisions are related to taxing statutes, and are hence apposite to the present context. All these decisions are related to taxing statutes, and are hence apposite to the present context. ( 8 ) IN Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh AIR1999 SC 2859 , (1999 )1 SCC209 and Punjab National Bank v. D. C. Krishna 2001 VI AD (SC )207 , air2001 SC 3208 , II (2001 )BC642 (SC ), [2001 ]107 Compcas20 (SC ), (2001 )4 Complj179 (SC ), JT2001 (6 )SC 408 , 2001 (5 )SCALE196 , (2001 )6 SCC569 , 2001 (2 )UJ1491 (SC ), (2001 )3 UPLBEC2267 , the Supreme Court held that if the statute provides for remedy of revision or appeal writ jurisdiction should not be invoked, ( 9 ) IN Union of India v. T. R. Verma AIR1957 SC 882 , (1958 )II LLJ259 sc , (1958 )0 PLR126 , [1958 ]1 SCR499 the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and a prerogative writ It will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution unless there are good grounds to do otherwise. ( 10 ) IN A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan AIR2000 SC 3032 , 2000 (5 )ALT44 (SC ), 2001 (1 )BLJR663 , 2000 (4 )CTC358 , (2001 )1 GLR687 , JT2000 (10)SC 599 , (2001 )1 MLJ75 (SC ), RLW2001 (1 )SC 84 , 2000 (6 )SCALE398 , (2000 )7 SCC695 , [2000 ]supp3 SCR303 , 2000 (2 )UJ1300 (SC ) the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of exercising the writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is available. ( 11 ) IN view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. . .