TMI Blog1986 (3) TMI 322X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, it is obvious that such discretion was exercised arbitrarily, but not judiciously. The above line of argument finds support from a series of judicial pronouncements both reported and unreported. They are: (1) [1973] 32 STC 464 (Mad.) (Chesebrough Pond's Inc. v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner) (2) [1985] 58 STC 137 (Mad.) (Dolton Printers Private Limited v. State of Tamil Nadu) (3) [1972] 86 ITR 699 (Mad.) (R.P. David v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madras) (4) [1964] 15 STC 57 (Mys) (Muthuvalli L. Hajee Ahamed Hussain Sahib Co. v. State of Mysore) and unreported decision in W.P. Nos. 10322 and 10323 of 1984 dated 26th October, 1984 (S.S.S. Ganesan v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Bodinayakanur), W.P. No. 1341 of 1985 dated 21st February, 1985 (S. Ramachandran Chettiar and Sons v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer IV (Main), Madurai), W.P. No. 2168 of 1985 dated 26th April, 1985 (New Shanmuga Traders v. Tamil Nadu Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal), W.P. No. 4257 of 1985 dated 26th April, 1985 (K.P.R. Rajeswari v. Commercial Tax Officer), W.P. No. 8481 to 8483 of 1985 dated 13th August, 1985 (Panayappan Leather Industries, represented by its Partner S.M. Angammai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1985 SC 330 will not govern the present case. The points urged in this context are: (1) The decision was rendered under the Excise Act, in particular stress is laid on the time of payment of excise duty; (2) No provision in the Excise Act to grant stay of collection of excise duty as was done by the High Court; on the other hand, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the authority to grant stay as per the rules: (3) Here by granting stay, the main relief is not claimed; (4) Absence of reasoning will lead to abuse of power. At the outset, I am to point out that the great emphasis with which the principle is asserted by the Supreme Court leaves no room for any doubt that the same is not confined to facts in that case nor to the Excise Act but is of universal application to matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available. The Supreme Court observed in paragraph 3 as follows: "In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1983] 53 STC 315 (SC); AIR 1983 SC 603 A.P. Sen, E.S. Venkataramiah and R.B. Misra, JJ., held that where the statute itself provided the petitioners with an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal to the prescribe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. An inevitable result of the filing of writ petitions elsewhere than at the place where the concerned offices and the-relevant records are located is to delay prompt return and contest. We do not desire to probe further into the question whether the writ petition was filed by design or accident in the Calcutta High Court when the office of the company is in the State of Punjab and all the principal respondents are in Delhi. But we do feel disturbed that such writ petitions are often deliberately filed in distant High Courts, as part of a manoeuvre in a legal battle, so as to render it difficult for the officials at Delhi to move applications to vacate stay where it becomes necessary to file such applications.' ......We have come across cases where land reform and important welfare legislations have been stayed by courts. Incalculable harm has been done by such interim orders. All this is not to say that interim orders may never be made against public authorities. There are, of course, cases which demand that *Here italicised. interim orders should be made in the interests of justice. Where gross violations of the law and injustices are perpetrated or are about to be perpetr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, it is of utmost importance to realise that interim orders ought not to be granted merely because a prima facie case has been shown. More is required. The balance of convenience must be clearly in favour of the making of an interim order and there should not be the slightest indication of a likelihood of prejudice to the public interest. We are very sorry to remark that these considerations have not been borne in mind by the High Court and interim order of this magnitude had been granted for the mere asking. The appeal is allowed with costs." *Here italicised. Though these are parent proceedings, yet the reliefs claimed are of interim character because they are directed against orders of conditional stay passed by the authority pending the appeal before it. For unless the petitioners are favoured with the interim stay in writ miscellaneous proceedings, the main proceedings by themselves would become infructuous. In other words, mere admission of the writ petition is of no benefit to the petitioners. Thus the petitioners' attempt to distinguish this case, is in my view, in vain. It is true that very recently I took a view favourable to the petitioners. But at that time ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
