TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 132 dated 14.12.1973 applied to the facts of the case so as to invalidate the penalty order. (ii) Whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained when a statutory appeal was available against the penalty order.
Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 132 dated 14.12.1973 applied to the facts of the case so as to invalidate the penalty order.
Analysis: The Notification was examined in the context of the relevant papers and was found to be inapplicable to the present facts. Since the case was not one covered by the Notification, the penalty could not be set aside on that basis.
Conclusion: The Notification did not apply, and the penalty order was not liable to be quashed on that ground.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition ought to have been entertained when a statutory appeal was available against the penalty order.
Analysis: The existence of a remedy by way of appeal under the statute was treated as a sufficient alternate remedy against the imposition of penalty. In that view, the writ petition should not have been entertained.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the order of the Single Judge and sustained the departmental action, with the result that the challenge to the penalty failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a specific exemption or refund notification does not cover the facts, and the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy against the impugned fiscal order, writ jurisdiction should not be invoked to bypass that remedy.
TaxTMI 
