Vinod Kumar Harjai vs. Union Of INDIA Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the CESTAT. The Court reasoned that in the context of taxing statutes, where a complete statutory mechanism for redressal is available, the High Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, should not entertain a writ petition. This principle is based on the self-imposed limitation of the High Court, which is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law. The Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal was cited as precedent, emphasizing that the High Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction if an adequate and suitable relief can be obtained elsewhere. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of the availability of an alternative efficacious remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Vinod Kumar Harjai, filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging an order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & Central Excise, Lucknow. The respondent authorities, through their counsel, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. They argued that the petitioner possessed an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) as provided under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal to support their contention that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory mechanism for redressal exists.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, given the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal before the CESTAT? (Question of law) Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the petitioner's counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition or why the alternative remedy should not be pursued. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal before the CESTAT under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They argued that in taxing statutes, where a complete mechanism for redressal is provided, the assessee should be relegated to that statutory authority. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax and Others Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, which states that High Courts should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 when an adequate and suitable alternative remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances warrant interference.