TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petition dismissed for bypassing statutory remedy and avoiding pre-deposit requirement under Article 226</h1> <h3>Infinite Uptime India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India, Through the Ld. Secretary, Ministry of Finance And Ors.</h3> The Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging a show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period. The court held that the petitioner could not ... Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative or equally efficacious remedy - SCN issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no justification for the Petitioner to bypass the alternative and efficacious remedy provided by the statute. This is a case where the Petitioner merely seeks to take a chance and avoid the pre-deposit, which is one of the statutory requirements for instituting an Appeal. Even recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda V/s. Farooq Ali Khan & Ors. [2025 (2) TMI 1021 - SUPREME COURT] has not approved the High Court’s exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction bypassing the statutory remedies available to the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the statutory process should not be frustrated by entertaining Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless, strictly, the parameters set out in Whirpool Corporation V/s. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai & Ors. [1998 (10) TMI 510 - SUPREME COURT] are satisfied. Petition dismissed. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Petition challenging the order dated 28 February 2025 by the 3rd Respondent, emphasizing that the Petitioner had an alternative and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, which it failed to exhaust. The Court noted the Petitioner's false averment that no such remedy existed, pointing out that the impugned order explicitly provided for an appeal with specified limitation. The Court declined to adjudicate on factual issues such as limitation and bias at this stage, holding that 'there is no justification for the Petitioner to bypass the alternative and efficacious remedy provided by the statute.' Relying on precedents including Oberoi Constructions v. Union of India (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3508) and the Supreme Court's ruling in Bank of Baroda v. Farooq Ali Khan (2025 171 taxmann.com 643), the Court reaffirmed that extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be exercised to circumvent statutory remedies unless strict parameters from Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks (1998 (8) SCC 1) are met. The Court directed that if the Petitioner files the appeal within four weeks, the Appellate Authority shall decide it on merits without addressing limitation, leaving all contentions open for that forum. The Petition was disposed accordingly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
