TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 549
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n end and dies a statutory death. Such coming to an end could have been avoided had the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the said order of provisional attachment in terms of Section 8(3) of the said Act. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Adjudicating Authority had passed an order confirming the order of provisional attachment, in its order dated 25th July, 2021. A large number of arguments are advanced by counsel for the petitioner on the merits of the provisional attachment order and the purported illegality of the confirmation of attachment by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 8(3). Challenging the said order of adjudication/confirmation of the provisional attachment order, the writ petitioner has already preferred ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pinion of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assessment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v. Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336 : 141 ER 486] in the following passage: (ER p. 495) '... There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to be strongly discouraged." 50. In Punjab National Bank v. O.C. Kr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act." 51. In CCT v. Indian Explosives Ltd. [(2008) 3 SCC 688] the Court reversed an order passed by the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court quashing the show-cause notice issued to the respondent under the Orissa Sales Tax Act by observing that the High Court had completely ignored the parameters laid down by this Court in a large number of cases relating to exhaustion of alternative remedy." On the same lines is an earlier decision of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd then may interfere if it comes to the conclusion that the petitioner seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; where there is failure of principles of natural justice or where the orders or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. 21. In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. [(1952) 1 SCC 334 : 1952 SCR 583 : AIR 1952 SC 192] ; CCE v. Dunlop India Ltd. [(1985) 1 SCC 260 : 1985 SCC (Tax) 75 : AIR 1985 SC 330] ; Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura [(1999) 1 SCC 472 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 295 : AIR 1999 SC 294] ; Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(1999) 3 SCC 5 : AIR 1999 SC 2281] ; C.A. Abraham v. ITO [(1961) 2 SCR 765 : AIR 1961 SC 609] ; Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. ....