Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + HC Service Tax - 2021 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 177 - HC - Service TaxMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Non-payment/short payment of service tax - whether the Commissioner was right in proceeding to hold that none of the case laws submitted by the petitioner had application in the case? - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India which refers to an alternative efficacious speedy remedy made available by a statute leading to ouster of jurisdiction of the writ court. By judicial pronouncements, certain restrictions have been imposed in the exercise of discretion bearing in mind that writ remedy is after all a discretionary remedy. One of these self-imposed restrictions is when an aggrieved party has a remedy under a statute, the writ court may in the judicious exercise of its discretion decline interference and relegate the party to avail such remedy. Since violation of principles of natural justice is the point based whereon the writ court’s jurisdiction has been invoked, we hold on the pleaded case in the writ petition that the petitioner has not asserted any of the fundamental principles of natural justice, as understood in the traditional and contemporary sense, viz. audi alteram partem or nemo debet esse judex in propria causa, to have been breached - It has also been held to violate natural justice if the order that is ultimately passed in the proceedings, after extending due, adequate and reasonable opportunity of hearing, does not reveal the grounds in support of the conclusion reached by the decision maker. The first and the most prominent shade is where an order is passed without notice/without opportunity/without hearing. In such a case, there is an obtrusive violation of the rule of audi alteram partem and the writ court may not labour much to decide on the entertainability of a writ petition even if an alternative efficacious speedy remedy were made available by a statute. Complaints of violation of natural justice, which fall in the second shade and may appear to be lighter than the first, are orders passed without reasons - It is also not the complaint that the order has not assigned reasons in support of the conclusion reached. The petitioner is left aggrieved because the impugned order does not say, in so many words, as to why the authorities cited by it were not considered to be applicable. A judicial order is obviously required to deal with the authorities cited in a manner that reflects application of mind, but it is not always the case in respect of an order of the present nature. If at all, we would view the omission of the Commissioner not to separately deal with the authorities cited as something like an error committed within jurisdiction which is not the same as acting in excess of jurisdiction. Such error, if required, can be corrected by the Tribunal if at all the same is approached. We, therefore, do not propose to hold that the order impugned suffers from a violation of principles of natural justice. There is no ground of substance to entertain this writ petition despite the statutory remedy of appeal being available to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.
|