STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED THR ITS ASST MANAGER LIAISON SRI KAMESHWAR PRASAD V. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE

WPC/3378/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL), which filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur. The order in question was an Order-In-Original dated 26th March, 2018, which was appealable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.N. Patel and Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.B. Mangalmurti, dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an alternative statutory remedy through an appeal, thus refraining from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 688010 (HC-JHARKHAND)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Punjab National Bank Vs O.C. Krishnan and others, Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs Chhabil Das Agarwall, Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs Mathew K.C.
• Laws Referred To: Central Excise Act, 1944
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RATNESH KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY KANT DUBEY
• Keywords: Alternative remedy; Order-in-Original; Statutory Appeal; Writ petition
• Section: 35B

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (T) No. 3378 of 2018 Steel Authority of India Limited, a Government of India Company, having its registered office at Ispat Bhavan, PO & PS- Lodhi Road, District- New Delhi, represented through its Assistant Manager (Liaison), Shri Kameshwar Prasad, aged about 53 years, son of Late Sudist Narayan Sinha, resident of Qr. No. A- 88, Satellite Township, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi, having office at Ispat Bhavan, RAW Materials Division, Steel Authority of India Limited, Ranchi, PO & PS- Doranda, District- Ranchi ... Petitioner -Versus- 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, having its office at 3rd Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, PO & PS- Sansad Marg, District- New Delhi 2. Secretary, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, having its office at Shastri Bhavan, PO & PS- Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, District- New Delhi 3. Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, having his office at Outer Circle Road, PO & PS- Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.B. MANGALMURTI ----- For the Petitioner : Mr. Vijay Kant Dubey, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate ----- 03/Dated : 26 th February, 2019 Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, J. 1. This writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, dated 26 th March, 2018 (Annexure 3 to the memo of this writ petition). This is Order-In- Original, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, which is appealable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 2. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there is efficacious and alternative remedy available with this petitioner, by way of statutory appeal. 3. It has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs O.C. Krishnan and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 569 at paragraph 6 as under: “6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 -2- and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. It has also been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs Chhabil Das Agarwall, reported in (2014) 1 SCC 603, at paragraph 15 as under: “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case , Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. Recently, it has been held by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs Mathew K.C., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 85, at paragraph 5 as under: “5. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. Normally this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution is loath to interfere with an interim order passed in a pending proceeding before the High Court, except in special circumstances, to prevent manifest injustice or abuse of the process of the court. In the present case, the facts are not in dispute. The discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 is not absolute but has to be exercised judiciously in the given facts of a case and in accordance with law. The normal rule is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ought not to be entertained if alternative statutory remedies are available, except in cases falling within the well-defined exceptions as observed in CIT v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal , as follows: (SCC p.611, para 15) “15. Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy i.e. where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to -3- invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case , Titaghur Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we are not inclined to adjudicate the legality or otherwise of the order, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, dated 26th March, 2018 (Annexure-3 to the memo of this writ petition), as an efficacious and alternative remedy is available with this petitioner, by way of statutory appeal. 7. However, as and when appeal is preferred by this applicant along with delay condonation application, the same will be decided, on its own merits, keeping in view the time, consumed in this writ petition. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is hereby dismissed. (D.N. Patel, J.) (B.B. Mangalmurti, J.) Ajay/ Anit "