M/S Ornate Labs PVT. LTD. And Ors vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is not warranted in this case. The reasoning is based on the existence of a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court found that the petitioners have a clear statutory path to challenge the order imposing penalty and interest, first before the Commissioner (Appeals) and thereafter before the Central Excise Service Tax, Patna. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally not entertain writ petitions when efficacious alternative remedies are available to the aggrieved party. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, if permissible under law, concerning the pre-deposit amount, and left it to the appellate authority to consider and pass an appropriate order. No specific issue was left undecided; the petition was disposed of on the ground of alternative remedy.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd. and its directors and an employee, approached the Patna High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petition challenges an order that imposed penalty and interest. The specific tax period and the authority that passed the impugned order are not explicitly detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not stated. The procedural history leading to the High Court's intervention involves the petitioners seeking to bypass the statutory appellate remedies available to them.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution when statutory remedies of appeal are available against an order imposing penalty and interest? The petitioner contended that the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction should be invoked. The respondents, represented by the Union of India and its various tax authorities, argued that the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently before the Central Excise Service Tax, Patna. They implicitly argued that the High Court should not interfere when such remedies exist.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6591 of 2018 ===========================================================
M/s Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd., Bela Industrial Estate, Bela Chapra Industries Complex, Muzaffarpur- 842005
Sri Sanjeev Rai Son of late Shivendra Prasad Rai (Managing Director), M/S Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd. Bela Industrial Estate, Bela Chapra Industrial Complex, Muzaffarpur- 842005
Sri Binod Kumar Thakur Son of late Rameshwar Thakur (Director /Managing Partner), M/S Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd. Bela Industrial Estate, Bela Chapra Industrial Complex, Muzaffarpur- 842005
Sri Abhishek Kumar@ Abhishek Son of Sri Shyam Babu Jha (Data Entry Operator), M/S Ornate Labs Pvt. Ltd. Bela Industrial Estate, Bela Chapra Industrial Complex, Muzaffarpur- 842005
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus
The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Patna. null null
The Principal Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Patna
The Commissioner, Central Tax and Central Excise, Patna-II, Patna.
The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax Division, Muzaffarpur.
The Sup
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 Patna High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.