M/S.Sarala Madan Infrastructure Project PVT.LTD. vs. Commissioner,Audit Commissionerate
Held
The Court held that there is an alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, by which their grievance can be redressed. The Court directed that if an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority within thirty days from the date of the order, the period spent in pursuing the writ petition from 21.08.2018 until the date of the order will be considered for condonation of delay under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The Court also made it clear that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner for a period of four weeks. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear and decide any interim application along with the appeal expeditiously, preferably within four months from the date of filing the appeal. The original impugned order was to be returned to the petitioner, with attested photocopies substituted.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner, Audit Commissionerate, GST and Central Excise. The order was passed under Sections 76, 77, 78, and 78A of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner sought redressal of their grievance through this writ petition, which was filed on 21.08.2018. The High Court heard arguments from the petitioner's counsel and the learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the opposite party.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy available for redressal of their grievance regarding the order dated 27.04.2018, and if so, what is the procedure to be followed. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition, implying a belief that this was the appropriate forum or that exceptional circumstances warranted writ jurisdiction. No specific arguments were recorded for the petitioner regarding the alternative remedy. Revenue's contention: The learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the opposite party likely argued for the existence of an alternative remedy, as indicated by the Court's observation.
Sections Cited
Section 76, Section 77, Section 78, Section 78A, Section 14
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
06.02.2019
Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the opposite party-Commissioner, Audit Commissionerate, GST and Central Excise.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the opposite party No.1 under Sections 76, 77, 78 and 78A of the Central Excise Act.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, we are of the considered opinion that there is an alternative remedy of appeal by which the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed. If an appeal is preferred before the appellate authority within thirty days from today, the period taken in pursing this writ petition from 21.08.2018 till today, will be taken into consideration for condonation of delay for approaching wrong Forum in view of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. It is made clear that no recovery shall be made from the petitioner for a period of four weeks, if the same is not done in the meantime.
It will be open for the Appellate Authority to hear the interim application along with the appeal and decide the s
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 Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.