Home Case Index All Cases VAT and Sales Tax VAT and Sales Tax + HC VAT and Sales Tax - 2008 (10) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (10) TMI 608 - KERALA HIGH COURTAdequate opportunity to substantiate contentions seeked - whether exhibit P4 will show a mis-apprehension of exhibit P2 judgment by the officer? Held that:- We are only at the stage of show-cause notices issued by the first respondent. In our opinion, the writ court can entertain a petition, if for any reason, the authority who has issued the notice has no competence to issue such notice or the notice issued is contrary to the statutory provisions, etc. These grounds are neither urged nor argued by the writ petitioner. Accordingly, it is normally desirable to let all statutory authorities develop the necessary factual background upon which decision should be based. And since the decision of the statutory authorities frequently requires expertise, the authorities should be given the first chance to exercise their discretion and further apply their expertise. Apart from this, the statutory authorities are created as a separate entity and are vested with certain powers and duties, the courts ordinarily should not interfere with the action of the statutory authorities until it has completed its own action or else has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction. We hasten to add, the exhaustion doctrine is not inflexible and when the reasons supporting the doctrine are found inapplicable, the doctrine should not be blindly applied. In view of the above, the learned single judge has not committed any error, whatsoever, which would call for our interference. Accordingly, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected, without reference to the respondents.
|