2014 (9) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essment order dated 11th March, 2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Assessment), Ghaziabad for the assessment year 2007-08 imposing tax on the goods being imported in the State of U.P. The contention of the petitioner is, that the Assessing Authority had no jurisdiction to levy tax under the works contract as the same was exempted under Section 3 of the Central Sales Tax Act, in view of the authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court in Gannon Dunkerley Vs. State of Orissa, 88 STC 205 as well as the decision of the petitioner i.e. C.I.T Vs. IRCON Ltd., 2005 UPTC 984 and CST Vs. IRCON LTD., (2013) 66 VSTC 432. The contention of the petitioner is that the goods have been imported from outside the State of U.P. for use in the execution ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the appellate authorities and cannot be examined in a writ jurisdiction. The learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Sanjay Nagayach and others, 2013 (7) SCC 25 wherein the Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly exercised the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in holding that the alternative remedy of the appeal is not a bar in exercising the writ jurisdiction since the order passed by the Joint Registrar was arbitrary. The Supreme Court held: "34. The High Court, in our view, has therefore rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the alternative remedy of appeal is not a bar in exercising that jur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... without jurisdiction or where the vires of an Act was challenged. The same view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, 1998 (8) SCC 1, State of H.P. Vs. Gujrat Ambuja Cement Ltd., 2005 (6) SCC 499 and Sanjana M. Wig Vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., 2008 (8) SCC 242. It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy. How....