High Court dismisses writ petitions for untimely invocation of jurisdiction under Article 226.

The Court held that the petitioner could not invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 after the statutory appeal period had expired. It was emphasized that the High Court should generally refrain from entertaining writ petitions when an effective appellate remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances exist. The Court found no extraordinary circumstances warranting the invocation of Article 226 in this case, as the reliefs sought could have been granted by the appellate authority. Therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed due to the failure to utilize the statutory remedy within the prescribed period.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India after the statutory period for filing an appeal has expired.
2. Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 when an alternative statutory remedy is available but not availed within the prescribed time.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Invoking Jurisdiction Under Article 226 After Expiry of Statutory Appeal Period:
The petitioner, a registered service provider, was issued a show cause notice (Ext.P3) for the alleged difference in service tax, which was contested but ultimately resulted in a demand and penalty order (Ext.P5). The petitioner failed to file an appeal within the statutory period of three months as prescribed under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994. The petitioner argued that the person responsible for tax matters had left without informing about the receipt of Ext.P5, and only upon receiving a subsequent notice did the petitioner become aware of the order.

The respondents contended, relying on the Division Bench decision in *Asst. Commissioner of Central Excise v. Krishna Poduval*, that once the period of limitation for filing the appeal expired, the remedy of the petitioner ended, and no cause survived to entertain the writ petition. The petitioner, however, argued that the High Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution remains available even if the statutory remedy is not.

2. Entertaining Writ Petition Under Article 226 When Alternative Remedy Exists:
The petitioner cited several cases, including *Rayalseema Constructions and Another v. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer* and *K. Venkatachalam v. A. Swamickan*, to argue that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances. The respondents countered with the decision in *Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai*, asserting that the High Court generally refrains from entertaining writ petitions when an effective appellate remedy is available, unless there are exceptional circumstances.

The Court reviewed the principles laid down in various cases, including the Supreme Court's decision in *Surya Dev Rai*, which outlined the circumstances under which the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 could be invoked. The principles emphasize that such jurisdiction should be exercised sparingly and only in cases of gross jurisdictional errors, failure of justice, or when statutory remedies are inadequate or unavailable.

The Court also referred to decisions like *Prasad v. State of Kerala*, *Krishnan T. and Another v. State of Kerala*, and *Kerala Motor Transport W.W.F. Board v. Government of Kerala*, which consistently held that when the statutory period for appeal has expired, the High Court should not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to bypass the statutory limitation.

In conclusion, the Court found no extraordinary circumstances warranting the invocation of Article 226. The reliefs sought by the petitioner could have been granted by the appellate authority, and the failure to invoke the statutory remedy within the prescribed period was not a sufficient reason to entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed.

---