S. K. Pansari vs. Union Of INDIA
Held
The High Court held that the learned Single Judge was not in error in refusing to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, especially when an alternative forum for appeal against the assessment order was available. The Court reasoned that the appellant's submission regarding similar circumstances where proceedings were dropped and penalties refused could be effectively examined by the Appellate Authority. The appellant was granted liberty to present these circumstances to the Appellate Authority, who would objectively consider the matter. The appeal was dismissed with this liberty. The Court also directed that any delay in preferring the appeal before the appellate forum would be condoned for the period the writ petition and the present appeal were pending.
Facts
The appellant, S. K. Pansari, proprietor of M/s Monu Steels, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by an authority. The appellant contended that in similar circumstances, the Assessing Authority had previously dropped proceedings and refused to impose penalties, providing evidence for this. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant then filed a writ appeal before the High Court. The appeal arises from the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(T) No. 57 of 2018. The revenue was represented by the Union of India through the Principal Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Central GST Building, Raipur.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction when an alternative appellate forum was available against the order of the assessment authority. Arguments for the Appellant: The appellant argued that the Assessing Authority had dropped proceedings and refused to impose penalties in similar and identical circumstances, as evidenced by Annexures P/4 and P/5. They contended that this precedent should have been considered. Arguments for the Revenue: The revenue did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the Court's decision implies that the revenue likely supported the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of an appellate remedy.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No.590 of 2018 (Arising out of Order dated 28.03.2018 passed in W.P.(T) No. 57 of 2018 by the learned Single Judge) • S. K. Pansari S/o Late Shrilal Pansari aged 53 years R/o Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Proprietor, M/s Monu Steels in front of Deshbandhu Complex, Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant Versus • Union of India through Principal Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Central GST Building, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Vinay Kumar Jain, Advocate For Respondent/Revenue : Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment on Board Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice 26.11.2018
Heard counsel for the Appellant and counsel for the Revenue.
The learned Single Judge is not in error in refusing to exercise his extraordinary jurisdiction in the writ application especially when there is still a forum for appeal against the order of the assessment.
The submission made on behalf of the appellant that in similar and identical circumstanc
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Chhattisgarh High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.