TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 1166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls within that category where it can be ascertained that there is absolutely no defence or that a mandamus would be warranted - this is not a fit and proper case for exercising the discretion by the Court under Article 226 to entertain a petition seeking a mandamus for the payment of bills and the petitioner ought to be relegated to the ordinary civil remedy. Petition dismissed. - Misc. Bench No 11435 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 19-11-2014 - Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud And Krishna Murari, JJ. Counsel for Petitioner :- Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- H.K. Bhatt JUDGMENT: The petitioner participated in a tender process floated by the first respondent and was awarded a contract for publication of advertiseme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the first respondent stating that his office was investigating a case of service tax evasion against the petitioner. The allegation is that the petitioner was collecting service tax from service tax recipients but this was not being paid into the Government exchequer. The letter states that though documents/information was sought from the petitioner in order to ascertain its service tax liability, the petitioner has not produced any documents on one pretext or the other and is avoiding appearance before the officers investigating into the matter. Hence, it has been alleged that the petitioner has suppressed the facts from the revenue authorities with an intent to evade service tax and that the authorities intend to initiate proceedings for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates a well established principle that in contractual matters, it cannot be said in absolute terms that a writ petition is not maintainable. The restraint which is imposed while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 is a self-imposed limitation and the Kerala High Court emphasizes the relevant factors which must guide in exercising the self-imposed limitation under article 226 of the constitution in the matter of payments of contractors' bills. These are, as stated in the judgment: (1) When there is no disputed question of fact requiring adjudication on detailed evidence. (2) When no alternate form is provided in the resolution of any disputes pertaining to a contract. (3) When claim by one party is not contested by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature, which would have to be evaluated on the facts of each case. This can more appropriately be carried out when a suit is filed. In the light of the facts which have been brought to the notice of the Court, we are of the view that this is not a fit and proper case for exercising the discretion by the Court under Article 226 to entertain a petition seeking a mandamus for the payment of bills and the petitioner ought to be relegated to the ordinary civil remedy. We clarify that we have not made any finding on the merits of the case since we have declined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
