TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut the reasoning of the Tribunal indicates that it has proceeded on those lines. There was a direct refusal to follow the decisions of the co-ordinate bench. In light of such a stark refusal, the Division bench found that extraordinary jurisdiction had to be exercised despite the availability of an appeal remedy. We do not find that the case at hand is of such nature as the case of Mercedes Benz India, where writ jurisdiction needs to be exercised, and the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner would be of appeal. Filing an appeal by itself cannot be considered as prejudice. As regards the prejudice by erroneous finding is concerned if the finding is erroneous and patently contrary to the record, that can be corrected in appeal. It is not that the moment there is an erroneous or incorrect finding, writ jurisdiction has to be exercised. As emphasized in the order passed in Infra Dredge Services Pvt. Limited, totality of the circumstance will have to be considered and not only the stand-alone grounds. No case is made out for the exercise of writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2022 - NITIN JAMDAR AND GAURI GODSE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he patent error was that though show cause notice had referred to impugned transactions being undertaken outside the country, which was the basis of the Respondents, yet the Tribunal has stated that there is nothing on record that impugned transactions were undertaken outside the country. There are errors which go to the root. Third, it is argued that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and order, has refused to follow the decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of SBI Card and Payments Services Pvt Ltd Vs. Commr. Of S.T., New Delhi 2016 (41) S.T.R. 846 (Tri-Del) and the decision of Citi Bank Vs Commissioner of S. Tax 2016 (43) S.T.R. 445 (Tri. - Chennai). The Tribunal could not have refused to follow the law laid down and should have referred the matter for consideration to a larger bench as a matter of judicial discipline. As held by the Division bench of this Court in the case of Mercedes Benz India Pvt Ltd Vs Union of India 2010 (252) E.L.T. 168 (Bom.), it is a matter of judicial discipline to refer the matter to a larger bench if a different view is to be taken from the decision of a co-ordinate bench, and therefore interference in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. However the recent decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Greatship (India) Limited 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1262. will also have to be noted. In this case, the Hon ble Supreme Court disapproved the exercise of writ jurisdiction in fiscal matters when an alternate remedy under the statute is available. The ground that the Tribunal has erred in distinguishing the decisions of the co-ordinate benches is also a ground that can be taken in the substantive appeal. While exercising writ jurisdiction on the ground that the Tribunal has committed indiscipline, the writ court has to carefully analyze all circumstances since setting aside a judicial order in a statutory appeal on merits is different than setting it aside while exercising extraordinary jurisdiction on the ground of indiscipline and it reflects on the members of the Tribunal. Thus, before exercising writ jurisdiction to set aside the impugned order on the ground of judicial indiscipline, we must be satisfied that there was indeed such gross judicial indiscipline, which requires its interference considering as an extraordinary circumstance. 8. Having considered the reaso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant Vs. Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Mumbai ITXA No. 144 of 2006, decided on 14 November 2008. wherein the Division bench of this Court had referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of R.C. Shama v. Union of India 1976 (3) SCC 474., that unless explained by an extraordinary circumstance, it is highly undesirable that there should be a gap between the conclusion of arguments and the order. In the case of Infra Dredge Services Pvt. Limited, the Court found that the delay of 6 months was not satisfactorily explained. In the case at hand, the situation of the Covid-2019 pandemic was extraordinary and therefore delay in this case will have to be considered on a different footing altogether. That the functioning of the Tribunal was affected during the concerned period is not disputed before us. Considering that during a substantial part of this period, the Tribunal was not functioning, if only on the ground of delay and on the ground of errors or patent errors, writ jurisdiction is to be exercised, then all the matters in which pronouncement of orders was postponed due to Covid-2019 pandemic, would be assailed in writ jurisdiction. This cannot be the intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
