TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the fulfillment of the obligations, performed by him, in this regard. 5. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner executed a bond agreeing certain terms and conditions. As per the bond executed by the writ petitioner, on demand he has to pay the duty levied in his case for fulfillment of the export obligations within a stipulated time. Further conditions are also imposed for the purpose of fulfilling the export obligations by the writ petitioner. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the writ petition has failed to fulfill the export obligations, as agreed by the writ petitioner, in the bond signed by him. Thus, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the present writ petition. 7. It is further contented that the impugned demand notice dated 25.04.2011 is an appeallable order under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Section 128 of the said Act provides an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Thus, initially, the writ petitioner has to exhaust the remedies provided under the Act. No writ petition can be entertained before exhausting the remedies provided under the Act, other than under exceptional circumst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal structure. (These cannot be catalogued but can only be illustrated): (1) The supremacy of the Constitution. (2) Republican and Democratic form of government and sovereignty of the country. (3) Secular and federal character of the Constitution. (4) Demarcation of power between the Legislature, the executive and the judiciary. (5) The dignity of the individual secured by the various freedoms and basic rights in Part III and the mandate to build a welfare State contained in Part IV. (6) The unity and the integrity of the Nation. 2. Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala and Anr. [MANU/SC/0445/1973 : (1973) 4 SCC 225]. That separation of powers between the legislature, the executive and the judiciary is the basic structure of the Constitution is expressly stated by Sikri, C.J. 3. P. Kannadasan and Ors. v. State of T.N. and Ors. [MANU/SC/0650/1996 : (1996) 5 SCC 670] the Supreme Court noted that the Constitution of India recognised the doctrine of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, namely, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. The Court said: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty Under Article 14 of the Constitution. (iv) The superior judiciary (High Courts and Supreme Court) is empowered by the Constitution to declare a law made by the legislature (Parliament and State legislatures) void if it is found to have transgressed the constitutional limitations or if it infringed the rights enshrined in Part III of the Constitution. (v) The doctrine of separation of powers applies to the final judgments of the courts. Legislature cannot declare any decision of a court of law to be void or of no effect. It can, however, pass an amending Act to remedy the defects pointed out by a court of law or on coming to know of it aligned. In other words, a court's decision must always bind unless the conditions on which it is based are so fundamentally altered that the decision could not have been given in the altered circumstances. (vi) If the legislature has the power over the subject-matter and competence to make a validating law, it can at any time make such a validating law and make it retrospective. The validity of a validating law, therefore, depends upon whether the legislature possesses the competence which it claims over the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. 2. KanaiyalalLalchand Sachdev and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(07.02.2011 - SC) : MANU/SC/0103/2011 It is well settled that ordinarily relief Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person. (See Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and SBI v. Allied Chemical Laboratories.) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. v. ChhabilDass Agarwal, MANU/SC/0802/2013 : 2014 (1) SCC 603, as follows: Para 15. while it can be said that this Court has recognised some exceptions to the Rule of alternative remedy i.e. Where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the propo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (42nd Amendment) Act, 1976, the power relating to alternative remedy has been considered to be a rule of self imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion and never a rule of law. Despite the existence of an alternative remedy it is within the jurisdiction of discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that though the matter relating to an alternative remedy has nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the case, normally the High Court should not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy. If somebody approaches the High Court without availing the alternative remedy provided the High Court should ensure that he has made out a strong case or that there exist good grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction. 6. K.S. Rashid and Sons v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and Ors., AIR (1954) SC 207; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Ors., AIR (1955) SC 425; Union of India v. T.R. Varma, AIR (1957) SC 882; State of U.P. and Ors. v. Mohammad Nooh, AIR (1958) SC 86 and M/s K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. v. S....