Alternative statutory remedy and natural justice objections were insufficient to justify writ interference; parties were relegated to appeal.

No breach of natural justice was found because the order recorded that adequate hearing had been afforded and the record did not support denial of opportunity. The challenge to invocation of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and to limitation was not accepted as a ground for writ interference, since reasons had been given and an alleged jurisdictional error did not by itself justify Article 226 intervention when an efficacious statutory appeal was available. The petitioners were directed to pursue the appellate remedy, with delay to be condoned if the appeal was filed within the stipulated time and the discharge certificate could be placed before the appellate authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of natural justice; (ii) whether the invocation of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the plea of limitation warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (iii) whether the petitioners should be relegated to the appellate remedy with a direction for condonation of delay.

Issue (i): Whether the impugned order was vitiated for breach of natural justice.

Analysis: The impugned order recorded that an adequate opportunity of hearing had been afforded, and the challenge on the ground of denial of hearing was not supported by the record. The Court found no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The plea of breach of natural justice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the invocation of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 and the plea of limitation warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The authority had assigned reasons for invoking Section 73, and the Court held that the impugned order could not be treated as barred by limitation on that basis alone. The Court further held that any alleged erroneous assumption of jurisdiction, by itself, did not justify interference in writ jurisdiction, particularly when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy was available.

Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere on the issues of limitation and jurisdiction under Article 226.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners should be relegated to the appellate remedy with a direction for condonation of delay.

Analysis: The Court considered the availability of an appeal as the appropriate forum to contest the demand on merits, including the challenge to the invocation of Section 73. It accordingly permitted the petitioners to pursue the statutory appeal and directed that delay be condoned if the appeal was filed within the stipulated time. The petitioners were also permitted to place the discharge certificate before the appellate authority.

Conclusion: The petitioners were relegated to the appellate remedy with consequential protection on delay.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertained on merits, and the dispute was left to be decided by the appellate authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory appeal is available, the High Court will ordinarily not interfere under Article 226 with an order raising issues of limitation or jurisdiction, and the party may be relegated to the appellate forum.

---