Page 70 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

316 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 36
In view of the peculiar circumstances, even while granting an oppor-
tunity to the petitioner, we wanted to put them on condition. Therefore, on
8-11-2018 we passed an interim order to the following effect,
“It is represented by Mr. S. Dwarakanath, Learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disput-
ed tax, for the purpose of filing an appeal. But, the employee, who was
incharge and who was subsequently, suspended in contemplation of
disciplinary proceedings, failed to file the appeal. The contention of
the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the issue lies in a narrow
campus.
Since the petitioner has already paid 12.5% of the disputed tax,
the request of the petitioner for granting one more opportunity would
be considered favourably, if the petitioner pays an additional amount
equivalent to 12.5% of the disputed tax. The petitioner shall make such
payment within a period of one week.
Post on 19-11-2018 for orders.”
Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner made payment of
Rs. 9,59,190/-, representing 12.5% of the taxes for the year 2013-2014 (CST).
The amount was paid on 13-11-2018.
Therefore, the writ petition is ordered, the impugned order is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent. The petitioner shall
appear before the 1st respondent on 10-12-2018 and explain the discrepan-
cies. After such personal hearing, the 1st respondent may pass orders
afresh.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.”
11. In the backdrop of these facts, the central question is : whether the
High Court ought to have entertained the writ petition filed by the respondent?
As regards the power of the High Court to issue directions, orders or writs in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the same
is no more res integra. 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 the Constitution, it ought not to do so as a matter of course when the ag-
grieved person could have availed of an effective alternative remedy in the man-
ner prescribed by law (see Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila
Parishad now Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar [AIR 1969 SC 556] and also Nivedita
Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India & Ors. [(2011) 14 SCC 337]). In
Thansingh Nathmal & Ors. v. Superintendent of Taxes, Dhubri & Ors. [AIR 1964 SC
1419], the Constitution Bench of this Court made it amply clear that although the
power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is very wide, the
Court must exercise self-imposed restraint and not entertain the writ petition, if
an alternative effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person. In paragraph
7, the Court observed thus : -
“7. Against the order of the Commissioner an order for reference could
have been claimed if the appellants satisfied the Commissioner or the High
Court that a question of law arose out of the order. But the procedure pro-
vided by the Act to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court was bypassed,
the appellants moved the High Court challenging the competence of the
Provincial Legislature to extend the concept of sale, and invoked the ex-
traordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and sought to
GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  70