TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that an alternative statutory appeal lay to the Supreme Court; (ii) whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated by violation of Rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules and the principles of natural justice because a new factual basis and additional material were relied on without affording the assessee an opportunity to answer.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition was not maintainable on the ground that an alternative statutory appeal lay to the Supreme Court.
Analysis: The existence of an alternate remedy is a rule of discretion, not an absolute bar. Where breach of statutory rules or violation of natural justice is alleged, writ jurisdiction can still be invoked. The petition had already been admitted and had remained pending for years, making relegation to the statutory appeal at that stage inappropriate.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable; the objection based on alternate remedy was rejected.
Issue (ii): whether the Tribunal's order was vitiated by violation of Rule 23 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules and the principles of natural justice because a new factual basis and additional material were relied on without affording the assessee an opportunity to answer.
Analysis: Rule 23 permits additional evidence only in limited circumstances and after opportunity to the opposite side. The Tribunal relied on a new contention that the additives were nutrient supplements and referred to literature never tested before the lower authorities. That amounted to a fresh case and additional material being used without a fair opportunity of rebuttal, which offended procedural fairness and natural justice.
Conclusion: The Tribunal's order was vitiated by violation of Rule 23 and natural justice; the adverse order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court set aside the single judge's decision, restored the assessee's challenge, and directed fresh adjudication by the Tribunal after permitting any additional material only in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
Ratio Decidendi: Availability of an alternate statutory remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is attacked for violation of natural justice or statutory procedure, and a tribunal cannot found its decision on a new case or additional material without giving the affected party a fair opportunity to meet it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
