M/S Mukesh Kumar Goyal vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority's order was not a case of total absence of jurisdiction, nor was it passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The order explicitly mentioned that a personal hearing was granted, thus negating a violation of the principles of natural justice. While the correctness of the Appellate Authority's view was not examined, the Court found that the alternative remedy of appeal to the Appellate Tribunal, as available under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, was a more appropriate recourse. Therefore, the High Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to examine the merits of the case. The writ petition was dismissed, but the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue the alternative remedy. Additionally, the Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal within three months from the date of the order, it shall be decided on its merits without being barred by limitation, as the writ petition was filed before the expiry of the limitation period.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mukesh Kumar Goyal, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Authority's order was non-speaking, did not consider the grounds raised, and that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded. The petitioner sought to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court despite the existence of an alternative remedy of appeal. The respondents, Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, were represented. The High Court reviewed the order passed by the Appellate Authority.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority's order is non-speaking and fails to consider the petitioner's grounds, thereby violating principles of natural justice, justifying invocation of Article 226 despite an alternative remedy? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority's order was non-speaking, did not seriously consider the grounds raised by the petitioner, and that a proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded. These alleged deficiencies, according to the petitioner, warranted the High Court's intervention under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Respondents' arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, took the Court through the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The judgment does not explicitly detail further arguments from the respondents regarding the merits of the petitioner's claims, but rather focuses on the existence of an alternative remedy.