Bank recovery proceedings upheld after borrower fails to respond to show cause notice and skips hearing

The HC dismissed a writ petition challenging recovery proceedings, finding an efficacious alternative remedy available. Following SC precedent in PHR INVENT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY v. UCO BANK, the court applied rigorous restraint in matters involving recovery of public money and bank dues. The petitioner failed to respond to show cause notice dated 22.10.2021 and did not attend personal hearing, negating natural justice violations. The court clarified dismissal would not prejudice any future appeal rights.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to show-cause notice and Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2024.
2. Availability of an alternative remedy.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Parameters for entertaining a writ petition.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2021 and an Order-In-Original dated 18.06.2024, demanding service tax and penalty. The petitioner received the show-cause notice but did not respond, despite being given opportunities for a hearing. The impugned order confirmed the demand, and the petitioner was informed of the right to appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The court noted the availability of an alternative remedy through the appeal process.

2. The court referred to a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing that a High Court should not entertain a writ petition if an effective alternative remedy is available, especially in matters involving recovery of taxes and public money. The court highlighted the importance of self-imposed restraint in such cases. Another Supreme Court judgment was cited, stating circumstances where a writ court can intervene despite the availability of an alternative remedy, such as enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, challenge to the vires of an Act, or pure questions of law.

3. The petitioner argued that without relief from the High Court, they would be unable to present documentary evidence during the appellate stage. However, the court found that the petitioner had opportunities to respond and submit documents earlier, which were not utilized. The court held that the petitioner could still present evidence during the appeal process, thus not warranting intervention through a writ petition.

4. Considering the facts presented and the legal precedents cited, the court declined to entertain the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy, lack of violation of principles of natural justice, and failure to meet the parameters for intervention through a writ petition. The court clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not prejudice the petitioner's right to appeal or raise objections to the impugned order within the legal framework.

---