TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 655X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rarified mandamus, to quash the Assessment order, dated 13/3/2015 for the year 2010 2011 and consequently, a direction to the Assistant Commissioner (CT), Ayanavaram Assessment Circle, Chennai/respondent herein, from taking any coercive action, to recover a sum of ₹ 27,91,302/-. 3. The main contentions before the writ Court were that notice sent to the registered place of business viz., No.B.23/24 City Centre, No.232, Purasawakkam High Road, Chennai 10 had been returned with the postal acknowledgement 'Left', for the reason that the appellant/assessee had closed down the business in the year 2011, but the notice was served on the residential address of the Director of the Assessee Company. In as much as the business was closed in the year 2011, there was no trading activity and that the very assessment itself is erroneous. 4. Going through the material on record, the writ Court found that the Director of the petitioner Company had received the notice. Therefore, the Court observed that it is the duty of the assessee to respond to the show cause notice by filing a detailed reply, which the assessee failed. Accordingly, an order of assessment dated 13/3/2015 cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided, the high Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 10. In United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others {(2010) 8 SCC 110}, the Hon'ble Apex Court, at paragraph Nos.43 to 45, held as follows:- 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal or grievance still holds the field. 12. The Hon'ble Apex Court, after considering a catena of cases, in Shauntlabai Derkar and Another Vs. Maroti Dewaji Wadaskar {(2014) 1 Supreme Court Cases 602}, at para Nos.15 to 18, held as follows:- 15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e, where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal Case {Thansigh Nathmal Vs. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419}, Titaghur Paper Mills Case {Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433} and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, the appellate authority shall consider the petition only on merits without any reference to the period of limitation. However, it is clarified that the appellate authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by the High Court while disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.44 of 2009, in its judgment and order dated 5/10/2010. 13. After considering a plethora of judgments, in Union of India and Others Vs.Major General Shri Kant Sharma and Another {(2015) 6 SCC 773}, at para36, the Apex Court held as follows:- The aforesaid decisions rendered by this Court can be summarised as follows:- (i). The power of judicial review vested in the High Court under Article 226 is one of the basic essential features of the Constitution and any legislation including the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 cannot override or curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Refer: L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594. (ii). The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
