TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visional Authority dated 11.06.2025 on the ground that the petitioner's rectification application and repeated representation are all pending consideration. In the meanwhile, the order dated 11.06.2025 was passed considering the total factual matrix of the case. The Division Bench of this High Court disposed of the writ petition by making the following observations: 3. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties reached to a consensus. It is agreed that since the petitioner's representations dated 01.11.2022, 02.11.2022 and 04.11.2022 are pending consideration before the 2nd respondent/competent authority, the impugned order, dated 11.06.2025, may be set aside and the said respondent may be directed to take a decision on the said representations within fifteen days from the date of communication of this order. 4. In view of consensus arrived at, the impugned order dated 11.06.2025 is set aside. The 2nd respondent/competent authority shall decide the representations, in accordance with law, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits. At....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on perusal of the record, particularly on the aspect of the question of high sea sales are concerned, the impugned order specifically reflects of the authority having taken up that issue but after refusing to interfere with the same on the ground that the said aspect already stood concluded earlier and, therefore, was beyond the purview of the revisional authority. Moreover, what is also apparently evident from the bare perusal of the proceedings is that pursuant to the earlier order this High court in W.P. No. 16467 of 2025, decided on 23.06.2025, the respondent authorities did take up the matter of the petitioner and have duly scrutinized the same and the petitioners have in fact been provided with substantial relief of reducing the tax liability that was earlier assessed of Rs. 5,39,38,137/- and have reduced it to Rs. 2,98,94,898/-. Thus, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities have decided the matter with a closed mind or with a pre-determined approach. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the matter is not one which needs to be taken up invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather since there is alrea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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. Krishnan (2001) 6 SCC 569 this Court considered the question whether a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was maintainable against an order passed by the Tribunal under Section 19 of the DRT Act and observed: (SCC p. 570, paras 5-6) "5. In our opinion, the order which was passed by the Tribunal directing sale of mortgaged property was appealable under Section 20 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts from the State and its instrumentalities as to whether any case at all is made out requiring its interference on the basis of the material made available on record. There is nothing like issuing an ex-parte writ of mandamus, order or direction in a public law remedy. Further, while considering the validity of impugned action or inaction the Court will not consider itself restricted to the pleadings of the State but would be free to satisfy itself whether any case as such is made out by a person invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 30. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed questions of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts; (c) the petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute; (d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barr....