<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Court Rules Alternative Remedy Doesn&#039;t Bar Writ Petition; Orders Fresh Adjudication Due to Breach of Natural Justice.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77903</link>
    <description>The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition regarding the recovery of short paid Central Excise Duty. The court noted that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the filing of a writ petition, as it depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that the doctrine of alternative remedy is a matter of policy and discretion rather than a strict legal rule. The petitioner was found to have been denied the necessary documents and a fair hearing, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. As a result, the court set aside the final order of recovery and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh adjudication, allowing the petition by way of remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 08:30:37 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 08:30:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=754577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rules Alternative Remedy Doesn&#039;t Bar Writ Petition; Orders Fresh Adjudication Due to Breach of Natural Justice.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77903</link>
      <description>The Madhya Pradesh High Court considered the maintainability of a petition regarding the recovery of short paid Central Excise Duty. The court noted that the availability of an alternative remedy does not automatically bar the filing of a writ petition, as it depends on the specific circumstances of each case. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the court emphasized that the doctrine of alternative remedy is a matter of policy and discretion rather than a strict legal rule. The petitioner was found to have been denied the necessary documents and a fair hearing, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. As a result, the court set aside the final order of recovery and remanded the matter back to the authority for fresh adjudication, allowing the petition by way of remand.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 May 2024 08:30:37 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=77903</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>