TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1459X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t petition where alternative statutory remedy was available and it was held that Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon. The writ petitions are disposed of by relegating the petitioners to alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders. - CWP-12920-2016 - - - Dated:- 15-5-2018 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ACJ. AND MR. TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. For The Petitioner : Mr. Man Mohan Singh, Advocate for Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate For The Petitioner : Mr. Pawan Kumar Pahwa, Advocate And Ms. M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Credit it had been paid from the Personal Ledger Account (PLA) maintained by the assessee, is refunded. The entitled benefit of the said exemption, the petitioner's unit was granted refund for clearances effected by it during the period November, 2007 to 2010. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to the effect that during the period from November, 2007 to December, 2009, it took credit of Central Excise duty paid through PLA amounting to ₹ 8,76,47,883/- under self credit option available under the notification dated 14.11.2002. The said show cause notice was assigned for adjudication to respondent No.2 vide corrigendum dated 29.4.2015. Respondent No.2 vide order-in-original dated 17.5.2016 (Annexure P-1) confirmed the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examining the relevant case law on the point, it was recorded as under:- 14. In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and decision is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act. 15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. ( See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422 ; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653 ; Siliguri Municipality vs. Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436 ; S.T. Muthusami vs. K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572 ; Rajasthan SRTC vs. Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 ; Kerala SEB vs. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 ; A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs. S. Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695; L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs. State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634; Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC pp. 440-41, para 11) 11. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford, 141 ER 486 in the following passage: (ER p. 495) There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute. But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. The remedy p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. Dunlop India Ltd., (1985) 1 SCC 260; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5; C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433; H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312; Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1; Tin Plate Co. of India Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272; Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569). 18. In Union of India vs. Guwahati Carbon Ltd., (2012) 11 SCC 651 , this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: 8. Before we discuss the correctness o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
