Writ petition dismissed for bypassing statutory appellate remedies; freeze on bank account didn't bar filing appeal or pre-deposit

HC dismissed the petition, holding statutory appellate remedies are available and should be exhausted rather than bypassed by a writ. The court found allegations of jurisdictional error or precedent conflicts can be raised on appeal and that the freeze on the petitioner's bank account did not prevent making a pre-deposit or instituting an appeal. Factual and jurisdictional issues require inquiry by the appellate forum, and no case was made to interfere with the impugned order; petition dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Petitioner's bank account frozen due to five orders-in-original demanding ITC, interest, and penalty.
2. Petitioner's rush to High Court alleging breach of natural justice and seeking to bypass alternate remedy of appeal.
3. Argument on jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, and bypassing statutory remedies.
4. Precedents on exhaustion of alternate remedies and the purpose of Article 226 of the Constitution.
5. Court's observation on the misuse of Article 226 petitions for obtaining interim orders.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay dealt with the freezing of the Petitioner's bank account following five orders-in-original demanding ITC, interest, and penalty. The Petitioner rushed to the High Court, alleging a breach of natural justice and seeking to bypass the alternate remedy of appeal. The Court noted that the Petitioner had an efficacious remedy available under the statute to appeal the orders but chose to approach the Court instead, citing a violation of natural justice without reference to it in the initial petition.

The Court emphasized that arguments regarding jurisdiction and contrariness to previous judgments could be raised in an appeal, and the statutory remedies should not be lightly bypassed based on general averments. Referring to precedents, the Court highlighted the increased tendency to bypass statutory remedies and the need to exhaust alternate remedies before approaching the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court cited the importance of good and sufficient reasons to bypass statutory procedures, especially in matters involving revenue where statutory remedies are available.

Furthermore, the judgment referred to previous cases where the Court declined to entertain writ petitions, relegating the petitioners to the alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal. The Court noted that factual inquiries were necessary to establish jurisdictional facts and that even the Supreme Court disapproved of entertaining writ petitions in matters where statutory alternate remedies were available. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the Petition, reiterating the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Petition, granting liberty to the Petitioner to file appeals within six weeks and directing the Appellate Authority to consider and dispose of such appeals on merits without referring to the limitation issue. The judgment highlighted the misuse of Article 226 petitions for obtaining interim orders and prolonged proceedings, emphasizing the need to discourage such practices. Despite being a fit case for costs, the Court refrained from imposing costs at the persuasion of the Petitioner's counsel.

---