Telangana High Court
M/S.K.M.S.Agencies vs The Union Of India on 3 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION No.13491 of 2025
ORDER:
(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri B.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner;
Sri A.Kranthi Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for
for respondent No.1 and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for CBIC, for respondent No.2.
2. Heard on admission.
3. This writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India assails the Order-in-Original No.144/2024-
25/GST/Medchal, dated 24.02.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that
although the impugned order is appealable before the competent
authority under the statute, this writ petition may be entertained
because of violation of principles of natural justice. To elaborate,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to a
show cause notice issued to the petitioner, the petitioner filed
detailed reply. The said reply has not been considered and the
impugned order contains mere reproduction of the reply filed by
the petitioner. No reasons were assigned by the proper officer.
5. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC appearing for
respondent No.2 opposed the same and relied on paragraph No.13
to 15.5 of the impugned order to submit that 'discussions and
findings' are very much there. Even for the sake of argument, if
the discussions and findings are erroneous, the same can be
called in question before the appellate authority.
6. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the
parties.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in contending that
in certain situations, despite availability of alternative remedy, the
writ petition can be entertained. Breach of principles of natural
justice is also one of such eventuality. This was laid down by the
Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai 1. This judgment of Supreme Court was again
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
considered in U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and
Another 2 and it was opined 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...."
8. In the light of this distinction made in R.S.Pandey (supra),
the petitioner was required to show that the order was passed by
an authority having no jurisdiction and if the petitioner is
relegated to avail the alternative remedy, it will case palpable
injustice to it. No jurisdictional issue is raised by the petitioner
and therefore, in the light of the decision in R.S.Pandey (supra),
we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
9. Apart from this, recently, the Supreme Court in PHR Invent
Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others 3 has turn down
a Division Bench judgment of the Telangana High Court in
W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, where despite availability
of alternative remedy, the writ petition was entertained. The
(2005) 8 SCC 264
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is
maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain a petition. It is the
discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a
compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
"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)
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, since the petitioner has a
statutory efficacious alternative remedy, we are not inclined to
entertain this writ petition.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by reserving
liberty to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy available
under law. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
03.07.2025
sa/vs
