Steel Authority Of INDIA Limited Thr Its Asst Manager Liaison Sri 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 March 26, 2018. The reasoning was based on the existence of an efficacious and alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of a statutory appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court cited Supreme Court pronouncements in 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 that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution should generally not be entertained if an effective alternative remedy is available, unless specific exceptions like violation of natural justice or acting in defiance of fundamental judicial procedure are met. The Court observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated any such exceptional circumstances. The ratio decidendi is that statutory remedies must be exhausted before approaching the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court directed that if an appeal is preferred by the petitioner along with a delay condonation application, it will be decided on its own merits, taking into account the time consumed in the writ petition.

Facts

The petitioner, Steel Authority of India Limited, filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court challenging an Order-In-Original dated March 26, 2018, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur. The petitioner sought to challenge the legality and validity of this order. The respondents included the Union of India, Secretary of the Ministry of Mines, and the Commissioner of CGST & CX, Jamshedpur. The Court noted that the order under challenge was appealable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and that an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy was available to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when an effective alternative statutory remedy is available to the aggrieved person, as per the provisions of Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner approached the High Court by way of a writ petition. The judgment does not explicitly record any specific arguments made by the petitioner against the availability of the alternative remedy. Respondents' Argument: The respondents, through their counsel, implicitly relied on the principle that writ petitions should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy exists. The Court's reasoning heavily draws upon Supreme Court judgments that uphold this principle.