TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AC) VERSUS M/S. EVEREST INDUSTRIES LIMITED [ 2022 (4) TMI 1204 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] where it was held that When the power to the statutory authority is granted upto five years to modify the order, it cannot be said that the constitutional authorities would not have power to review the action. Therefore, concurring with the Division Bench, we do not concur with the decision of the Learned Judge to dismiss the writ petitions on the technicality of limitation, that too, when the batch was pending. Appeal disposed off. - W.A.(MD) Nos.1613, 2213, 2218 to 2220 and 2252 of 2021, 129, 170, 183, 184, 201, 202, 206 and 207, 1147 to 1151 of 2022 - - - Dated:- 1-12-2022 - And C.M.P.(MD) Nos.6928, 10940, 11013 to 11015, 11247 of 2021, 1274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the respondents. 3. Today, when the case was taken up for consideration, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the issue involved herein has already been considered by judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 etc. batch (The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department v. M/s.Everest Industries Limited) and hence, this writ appeal may be disposed of in the same lines. 4. The conclusive portion of the judgment dated 31.03.2022 made in W.A.No.1260 of 2017 etc. batch, reads as follows:- Conclusion: 147. Therefore, the position as regards section19(2)(ii) and the proviso inserted vide Act 28 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6 of the Constitution of India, the same is no more res integra. Even though the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action taken by the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the manner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar [AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita Sharma vs. Cellular Operators Association of India Ors. [2011 (14) SCC 337]. In Thansingh Nathmal Ors. vs. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e statutory period specified for filing of appeal had expired long back in August, 2017 itself and the appeal came to be filed by the respondent only on 24.9.2018, without substantiating the plea about inability to file appeal within the prescribed time, no indulgence could be shown to the respondent at all.? 6. On a reading of the above extracted paragraphs, it is seen that the Hon ble Supreme Court, after referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in the case of Thansingh Nathmal, held that although the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the Court must exercise self imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition. Further, in paragraph 15, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Article 226 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of The Constitution of India could not be circumscribed by the provisions of the Enactment (Central Excise Act) and they would certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act. Further, the Court directed that the writ petition would be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Tax Act and for such a reason, the power under Article 226 of The Constitution of India has to be exercised to effectuate rule of law and not for abrogating it. 9. In the light of the above, we hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o five years to modify the order, it cannot be said that the constitutional authorities would not have power to review the action. Therefore, concurring with the Division Bench, we do not concur with the decision of the Learned Judge to dismiss the writ petitions on the technicality of limitation, that too, when the batch was pending. We set aside the said order of the learned Judge and dispose of the writ appeals in WA.Nos.1446 and 1447/2021 accordingly. 151. In view of the fact that the batch of cases has been partially decided in favour of the assessees and partially in favour of the revenue, the writ petitioners are disposed of, in terms of the ratio laid down by this court. 152. With respect to W.P No 24535 of 2018, the same is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
