Page 60 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

306 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
disputed amount - Set aside - Article 226 of Constitution of India. - Even though
the High Court can entertain a writ petition against any order or direction passed/action
taken by the State under Article 226 of Constitution of India, it ought not to do so as a
matter of course when the aggrieved person could have availed of an effective alternative
remedy in the manner prescribed by law. The fact that the High Court has wide jurisdic-
tion under Article 226 ibid, does not mean that it can disregard the substantive provi-
sions of a statute and pass orders which can be settled only through a mechanism pre-
scribed by the statute. Indubitably, the powers of the High Court under Article 226 ibid
are wide, but certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on this Court under
Article 142 ibid. Article 142 ibid is a conglomeration and repository of the entire judicial
powers under the Constitution, to do complete justice to the parties. Even while exercis-
ing that power, this Court is required to bear in mind the legislative intent and not to
render the statutory provision otiose. [1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.); (2016) 1 SCC 315
relied on; (2017) 5 SCC 42 applied.; AIR 1954 SC 207; 1998 (101) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) dis-
tinguished]. [paras 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]
Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability of - Condonation of delay after
expiry of statutory period of limitation - High Court cannot disregard statutory
period for redressal of grievance and entertain writ petition as matter of
course. - The fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would
issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensa-
tion explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act,
2005. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision
otiose. [(2017) 5 SCC 42 applied]. [para 15]
Appeal allowed
CASES CITED
Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad now Zila Parishad
— AIR 1969 SC 556 — Referred .................................................................................................... [Para 11]
Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
— (2010) 5 SCC 23 — Referred ..................................................................................................... [Para 12]
Commissioner v. Hongo India (P) Ltd. — 2009 (236) E.L.T. 417 (S.C.) — Referred ....................... [Para 12]
Electronics Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India
— 2018 (361) E.L.T. 22 (A.P.) — Referred .............................................................................. [Paras 8, 15]
ITC Ltd. v. Union of India — 1998 (101) E.L.T. 9 (S.C.) — Distinguished ..................................... [Para 17]
K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission
— AIR 1954 SC 207 — Distinguished ....................................................................................... [Para 16]
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India — 1997 (89) E.L.T. 247 (S.C.) — Relied on .................. [Para 11]
Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India — (2011) 14 SCC 337 — Referred . [Para 11]
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited
— (2017) 5 SCC 42 — Applied ............................................................................................. [Paras 12, 15]
Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
— 2015 (326) E.L.T. 532 (Guj.) — Referred ................................................................................. [Para 15]
Phoenix Plasts Company v. Commissioner — 2013 (298) E.L.T. 481 (Kar.) — Referred ............... [Para 15]
Raja Mechanical Co. (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2013 (29) S.T.R. 81 (S.C.)
= 2012 (279) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Relied on .................................................................................. [Para 20]
Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner — 2008 (221) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.) — Referred ............................. [Para 12]
State v. Mushtaq Ahmad — (2016) 1 SCC 315 — Relied on ............................................................... [Para 13]
Suryachakra Power Corporation Limited v. Electricity Department
— (2016) 16 SCC 152 — Referred ................................................................................................. [Para 12]
Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes — AIR 1964 SC 1419 — Referred ....................... [Para 11]
Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa — (1983) 2 SCC 433 — Referred. ......................... [Para 11]
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  60