2024 (12) TMI 1185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., given the five orders-in-original, all dated 31 May 2024, collectively demanding ITC of Rs.523.12 crores, interest, and penalty. These Orders are appealable, and we are not satisfied with the usual reasons for not availing the alternate remedy of appeal. 5. Though this Petition was filed on 02 July 2024, it was moved only this morning, citing extreme urgency. 6. Admittedly, the Petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy available under the statute to appeal the Orders in Original dated 31 May 2024. Even the Orders in Original clearly state this. 7. However, as has become routine, the Petitioner has rushed to this Court, alleging a breach of natural justice, and therefore seeking to bypass the alternate remedy. 8. In pa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....impugned Orders in Original, are not based upon the show cause notice dated 11 August 2023, but they are based on a different show cause notice dated 14 February 2024. Therefore, at least prima facie, by relying upon our order dated 11 December 2023, there is no question of alleging breach of natural justice. There is no question of avoiding the alternate remedy by claiming a natural justice violation based on such an allegation. 12. The arguments about the orders suffering from "vice of want of jurisdiction" or the orders being "contrary to the decisions in MDS Switchgear Ltd and Nestle India Ltd." can always be raised in an appeal. Based on such general and vague averments, the remedies provided under the statute cannot be so lightly b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....But even then, the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. The Court observed, "Surely, matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters". 15. The Court, after referring to its earlier precedent in United Bank of India V/s. Satyawati Tondon and Others (2010) 8 SCC 110 observed that "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". 16. In Rattan India Power Limited V/s. The U....