Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when no substantive relief is sought against the assessment and demand order, and only interim protection is prayed for to enable the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis: Interim relief under Article 226 can be granted only in aid of and ancillary to a main relief capable of final adjudication in the writ petition. Where the petitioner does not seek quashing or any other substantive relief against the demand or levy, the Court cannot invoke writ jurisdiction merely to grant time or protection to prosecute an appeal before the statutory appellate authority. The petitioner had an available appellate remedy under Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and should have pursued it within time and sought interim relief from that authority.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable for the limited interim relief sought and was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 226 cannot be used to grant interim protection as the sole relief in the absence of a substantive claim capable of final adjudication in the writ petition; where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the party must pursue that remedy and seek interim relief there.