2025 (1) TMI 1240

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 3. Admittedly, the impugned order is appealable. However, the Petitioner contended that since this was a clear case of breach of principles of natural justice, the rule for the exhaustion of alternate remedies should not be applied, and this Court should entertain this Petition. To support this contention, Reliance is placed on Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and other AIR 1999 SC 22. 4. Mr Mahaveer Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that hardly two to three effective days were granted to the Petitioner to reply to the show cause notice. Secondly, he submitted that there was a variation between the show cause notice and the final order. He pointed out that the show cause notice had required ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat this was indeed a case of inadequate notice and, further, about the prejudice occasioned on account of such inadequate notice. 9. The Petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 14 December 2022 but digitally signed on 15 December 2022 at 12:55 p.m. The Petitioner applied for some time, and the Petitioner was granted the same. The Petitioner filed a reply to this show cause notice on 20 December 2022. Significantly, in this reply, which is fairly detailed, there is no grievance about inadequate notice or consequent prejudice. The Petitioner has raised all points in its defence, and there was no complaint about any serious prejudice on account of the alleged short notice. 10. Regarding the variation between the demand in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he impugned assessment order travelling beyond the show cause notice or a case where it could be ex-facie concluded that the Petitioner was prejudiced on account of the variation in the tentative figures suggested in the show cause notice and the final determination. 14. Finally, this is also not a case in which the Petitioner, in response to the show-cause notice and the further submissions, clearly and categorically requested a personal hearing. In the response dated 20 December 2022, in the last three lines, the Petitioner stated that it hoped the reply would satisfy the authorities, and if any further clarification is required in the matter, a video conferencing opportunity may please be given to clarify the stand. 15. Since the A....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....medy. The summary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not appropriate to decide such factual issues regarding whether there was any breach of natural justice and if so, any prejudice was indeed occasioned to the Petitioner. There is nothing like a mere technical breach of the principles of natural justice. A case will have to be made out about such breach and consequent prejudice. All such matters can best be decided in a statutory appeal provided by the law. 18. In the case of Oberoi Constructions Limited vs. The Union of India and others Writ Petition (L) No.33260 of 2023 decided on 11/11/2024 we have summarised several precedents on the issue of exhaustion of alternate remedies. By adopting the reasoning in the said ....