Steel Authority Of INDIA Limited Through Its Assistant Manager Liaison Shri Kameshwar Prasad vs. Union Of INDIA Through The Secretary Ministry Of Finance

Held

The Court held that it would not adjudicate the legality or otherwise of the order passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur, dated November 30, 2017. The reasoning was based on the established principle of judicial prudence that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained if an effective alternative statutory remedy is available. The Court cited multiple Supreme Court judgments, including Punjab National Bank Vs O.C. Krishnan, Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs Chhabil Das Agarwall, and Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs Mathew K.C., to support this proposition. The ratio decidendi is that when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained, ignoring the statutory dispensation. The Court also observed that any appeal preferred by the petitioner, along with a delay condonation application, would be decided on its own merits, keeping in view the time consumed in the writ petition. No specific issue was left undecided; the court declined to proceed on the merits due to the availability of an alternative remedy.

Facts

The petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an order-in-original dated November 30, 2017, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and validity of this order. The respondents were the Union of India, the Secretary of the Ministry of Mines, and the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur. The High Court noted that the order under challenge was appealable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, indicating a clear statutory mechanism for redressal of grievances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner? This issue turns on the interpretation and application of the principle of alternative remedy in writ jurisdiction. The petitioner's argument, implied by their filing of the writ petition, is that the circumstances warranted bypassing the statutory appeal. The respondents' argument, as understood from the court's reliance on established precedents, is that the existence of an alternative remedy should ordinarily bar the entertainment of a writ petition. The court considered pronouncements from the Supreme Court, including Punjab National Bank Vs O.C. Krishnan, Commissioner of Income Tax and others Vs Chhabil Das Agarwall, and Authorized Officer, State Bank of Travancore and another Vs Mathew K.C., which emphasize the judicial prudence of refraining from exercising writ jurisdiction when a statutory appeal mechanism is available, unless specific exceptions apply.