Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2018 (4) TMI 610

te remedy, provided under the taxing laws, writ petitions, should not be entertained. - The order of the writ Court made in W.P.No26435 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017, directing the appellant to avail the alternate remedy provided under the statute, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal warranting interference - appeal dismissed. - W. A. No. 686 of 2018 - Dated:- 11-4-2018 - S. Manikumar And V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, JJ. For Appellant : Mr. N. Viswanathan For Respondent : Mr. M. Santhanaraman JUDGMENT ( Order of the Court was delivered by S. Manikumar, J. ) Order in original No.57399 of 2017 dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai VIII Commissionerate, Chennai, sought to be quashed in W.P.No.26435 of 2017, is extracted hereunder "ORDER 21. In view of the abovementioned facts, findings and discussion and in exercise of the powers conferred upon me under the provisions of Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, I order as below: (i) I revoke the Customs Broker Licence No.CHN/R-294/2013 given to the Customs Broker, M/s.Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd with immediate effect. However, they are permitted to finish the cases where Bill .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e gone into in a writ petition, as the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy under the provisions of the Customs Act, by approaching the appellate authority. 5. Thus, for the above reasons, the Writ Petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed." 3. Though Mr.N.Viswanathan, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the correctness of the order-in-original and made submissions, as rightly ordered by the writ Court, facts cannot be gone into when there is an effective and alternate remedy of challenging the order-in-original, before CESTAT, Madras. Plea that on presumption that the order-in-original has been passed by revoking Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, cannot be countenanced at this stage. 4. On more than one occasion, Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, held that when there is an effective and alternate remedy, provided under the taxing laws, writ petitions, should not be entertained. Reference can be made to few decisions, in this regard. (i). In Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

n 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., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they do not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the high Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative wr .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

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 available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is crated by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effec .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

he 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 enactment, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act (Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SC 536. (iii). When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337. (iv). The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337.)" (viii) .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||