Telangana High Court
Uts Impex, vs Union Of India, on 18 July, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No.16069 of 2024
ORDER (per Hon'ble SP,J)
Sri Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
CBIC appearing for respondent No.2.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This is the second visit of the petitioner to this Court. In
the present case, Order-In-Original dated 28.03.2024 (Annexure
P.1) is the subject matter of challenge. The petitioner earlier filed
W.P.No.1970 of 2024 aggrieved by the order dated 27.12.2023
whereby without considering the reply of the petitioner, impugned
order was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
respondents again passed impugned order without properly
considering the contentions of the petitioner filed in the reply to the
show-cause notice. In addition, the respondents have not
considered their own Circular No.187/19/2022-GST, dated
27.12.2022, whereas, this circular was considered by the same
Authority while passing Order-In-Original No.63/2023-24/GST-
Medchal, dated 15.11.2023. It is submitted that the impugned
erroneous order deserves to be interfered with and the petitioner
may not be directed to relegate remedy of appeal.
5. Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel
for CBIC, submits that the impugned order is justifiable and even
assuming for the sake of arguments it is erroneous, the petitioner
has an efficacious alternative statutory remedy. Hence, this
petition may not be entertained. In furtherance, this Court's
previous order dated 29.01.2024, the respondents passed the
impugned order.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that
the impugned Order-In-Original does not specifically deal with the
stand taken in reply in relation to National Company Law Tribunal,
Hyderabad dated 26.12.2018 and their own circular dated
27.12.2022.
7. Even assuming that the aforesaid contention of the
petitioner is correct, we find substance in the argument of
Sri Dominic Fernandes that the same will at best makes the order
"erroneous" and not without jurisdiction. The reasons given in the
impugned order may not be to the satisfaction of the petitioner, but
the fact remains that the reasons have been assigned. If reasons
are erroneous, the order will not suffer from any patent lack of
jurisdiction. The petitioner has statutory remedy of preferring an
appeal and the Appellate Authority is best suited to examine the
impact of Circular dated 27.12.2022 and its discussion in another
Order-In-Original dated 15.11.2023 mentioned above. More so,
when admittedly, neither the circular dated 27.12.2022 nor Order-
In-Original dated 15.11.2023 formed part of the reply to the show-
cause notice.
8. Despite the availability of alternative remedy, the Writ
Petition can be entertained in certain situations. In Whirlpool
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1, it is held
that violation of principles of natural justice may be one such
condition. This judgment was again considered in U.P. State
Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another 2 and held as
under:-
"17. ...But normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
something more in a case, something going to the root of
the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would
show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the
writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided
by the statute...."
9. In view of this judgment, it is clear like cloudless sky that it
is the discretion of the writ Court to entertain a petition or not
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
(2005) 8 SCC 264
despite the availability of alternative remedy. Mere breach of
principles of natural justice does not make the petition
entertainable. There is no patent lack of jurisdiction established
nor it is shown that if petitioner is relegated to avail alternative
remedy, it will cause palpable injustice to him.
10. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court interfered with the order
of Telangana High Court where despite the availability of alternative
remedy, the writ jurisdiction was exercised. The relevant portion
reads as follows:
"15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has clearly
held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an
effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person.
It has been held 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. The Court clearly
observed that, 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 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. It has
been held that, though the powers of the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitude, still
the Courts cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed
restraint evolved by this Court. The Court further held that
though the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule
of discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is
difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court
should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution."
(Emphasis Supplied)
11. In view of foregoing discussion, in our opinion the
petitioner has efficacious statutory alternative remedy of appeal
and it is not a fit case to entertain the writ petition.
12. The Writ Petition is dismissed by reserving liberty to the
petitioner to avail the appellate remedy. No costs. Interlocutory
applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
_____________
Sujoy Paul, J
_______________________________
Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao, J
18th July, 2024
BDR/PRN
