AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....want of jurisdiction of the authority to even investigate into facts, writ petitions should not be entertained for the mere asking and as a matter of routine, and the writ petitioner should invariably be directed to respond to the show cause notice and take all stands highlighted in the writ petition. Whether the show cause notice was founded on any legal premises is a jurisdictional issue which can even be urged by the recipient of the notice and such issues also can be adjudicated by the authority issuing the very notice initially, before the aggrieved could approach the Court. Further, when the Court passes an interim order it should be careful to see that the statutory functionaries specially and specifically constituted for the purpose are not denuded of powers and authority to initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection, not granted. 2. In Commissioner of Income Tax & ors. vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal (2014) 1 SCC 603, it has been observed as under:- 5. The facts in brief are: The Assessee is a Sikkim based non....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ggrieved Under Section 17 before the Tribunal and the appellate remedy Under Section 18 before the Appellate Tribunal, the object and purpose of the legislation, it was observed that a writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the alternate statutory remedy available holding: 43. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked the settled law that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this Rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of 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 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0017/1985 : (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. In the instant case, neither has the Assessee-writ Petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case. 21. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the Assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon. 22. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 44 of 2009. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law. (2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): PROVIDED that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending before a High Court or any order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) before the commencement of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act, 1991] (3) Every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period of thirty days from the date of judgment or order of a Family Court.] 30. The argument that writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is a basic feature of the Constitution and cannot be ousted by Parliamentary legislation is far too fundamental to be questioned especially after the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 3 SCC 261. Ho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Seth Chand Ratan v. Pandit Durga Prasad (D) By Lrs. and Ors.: (2003) 5 SCC 399. Learned Counsel relied on paragraph (13) of the said judgment which, inter alia, lays down the principle, namely, when a right or liability is created by a Statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before seeking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the aforesaid principle is subject to one exception, namely, where there is a complete lack of jurisdiction of the tribunal to take action or there has been a violation of rules of natural justice or where the tribunal acted under a provision of law which is declared ultra vires. In such cases, notwithstanding the existence of such a tribunal, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction to grant relief. 44. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that a writ petition is not ordinarily maintainable to challenge an order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal, of course for reasons which are different from the ones given by the High Court in dismissing the writ petition. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... show causecum- demand notices and the reply thereto. It appears from the record that, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Kolkata Zonal Unit had gather information that one Kolkata-based export company was attempting to export or had exported substantial quantity of Muriate of Potash falling under a restricted item for export as per the exim policy of 2009-14 of the Government of India in the guise of another material through Kolkata Port to a person in Malaysia. It is in this context that, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice to which it had replied. It had participated in the hearing. In course of hearing before the adjudicating authority, the petitioners did not ask for the documents as sought to be identified in the present writ petition. The petitioners claim that documents produced in trial were not made over by the authorities to the petitioners. The petitioners became aware of such documents only after receipt of the impugned order. Therefore, the principles of natural justice stands vitiated. The revenue contends that, the petitioners were well aware of such documents and did not ask for the same during adju....