TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1985 (9) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....80-C.E., dated 18th June, 1980 as amended by Notification No. 50/81, dated 1st March, 1981. The appeal was rejected by the Collector. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioners claimed that they were entitled to the exemption and concessional rate of duty as between two relevant dates 1st of April, 1981 to 17th of September, 1981, for they had not cleared glass and glassware valued at Rs. 15 lakhs. They also urged that the demand made by the Assistant Collector was barred by time. Both the arguments were rejected by the Tribunal. It held that the value of the clearance in the financial year 1981-82 exceeded Rs. 15 lakhs on 18th September, 1981 and, as such, the petitioners were not entitled to the concession. The Tribunal further he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. It is relevant to mention here that this writ petition is at the admission stage and it was indicated earlier that it may be disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. There are no private parties. Respondent No. 1 is the Tribunal and Respondents 2, 3 and 4 are Government servants who are represented by a counsel. Technically speaking, the writ petition has not been admitted for hearing and, as such, it may be said that it has not been entertained however, we deal with the questions raised in this writ petition. 5. Briefly stated, the plea was that where the statute provides for an alternative remedy by way of a reference to the High Court, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would riot lie. Reference may....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ident from the above that their Lordships held that a reference made to the High Court after the order of the Tribunal was an effective alternative remedy. 6. In the case of Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. v. Governor General in Council, (AIR 1947 PC 78), Lord Uthwatt, J., had observed : "that in the provenance of tax where the Act provided for a complete machinery which enabled an assessee to effectively raise in the courts the question of the validity of an assessment denied an alternative jurisdiction to the High Court to interfere." 7. In Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. (Supra), their Lordships observed : "It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy provided by tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alternative remedy and they have not availed of it. However, we proceed to consider the questions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners also. We find no merits in either of them. Our reasons are as follows : 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that there was total lack of jurisdiction because the total clearance by the petitioners between 1st April, 1981 and 17th September, 1981 was less than Rs. 15 lakhs. This was urged on the basis of the two figures mentioned in the notice as well as in the impugned order. These figures are of Rs. 750,003.20 for the period 1-4-1981 to 25-6-1981 and Rs. 7,48,104.63, for the period 25-6-1981 to 17-9-1981. The total of these two figures is Rs. 14,98,107.83. There can ....