TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 601
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the fact that the writ Court has not interfered with the impugned order. 3. Being aggrieved, instant appeal has been field. 4. Though Mr.Joseph Prabakar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that order in Original Nos.36 to 48/2016 (R1), dated 28/6/2016, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, III Division, Service Tax II Commissionerate, Chennai, is patently illegal and that the authority has invoked some other rule, referred to in the counter affidavit, which does not form part of the show cause notice, dated 15/6/2015 and also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD., Vs. COLLECTOR OF C.EX., PUNE, reported in 2006 (203) ELT 360 (SC) and further contended that when the order in Original Nos.36 to 48/2016 (R1), dated 28/6/2016, is a non-speaking order, a writ petition can be entertained and more particularly, when there is a violation of principles of natural Justice, this Court is not inclined to accept the same, for the reason that time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, held that when there is an effective and alternative remedy, recourse to a writ petition, s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ition was entertained at all. There was a clear alternative remedy against the order of the CEGAT dated 09.07.1997 by means of filing a Reference Application before the CEGAT under Section 35G(1) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and if that application was rejected by the CEGAT there was a second alternative remedy of approaching this Court under Section 35G(3) of the Act seeking a direction to the CEGAT to make a reference to this Court. 5. It is well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court that particularly in tax matters there should be no short circuiting of the statutory remedies, vide Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603, Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Chandan Nagar Vs. Dunlop India Limited, AIR 1985 SC 330, etc. 7. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in G.Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman and Raman Ltd., AIR 1952 SC 192 held that as the Motor Vehicles Act is a self contained code and itself provides for a forum for appeal/revision, the writ jurisdiction should not be invoked in matters relating to its provisions. A similar view was taken in Assistant Collector of Central Excise Chandan Nagar V....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they do not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the high Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is crated by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267, this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife", the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 17. In the instant case, neither has the writ petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act (Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SC 536. (iii). When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337. (iv). The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337.)" 15. In Veerappa Pillai Vs. Raman & Raman Ltd {1952 SCR 583}, CCE Vs. Dunlop India Ltd {(1985) 1 SCC 260}, Ramendra Kishore Biswas Vs. State of Tripura {(1999) 1 SCC 472, Shivgonda Anna Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra {(1999) 3 SCC 5}, C.A.Abraham Vs. ITO {(1961) 2 SCR 765}, Titaghur Paper Mills Co Ltd., Vs. State of Orissa {(1983) 2 SCC 433}, H.B.G....