Page 71 - GSTL_21st May 2020_Vol 36_Part 3

2020 ] ASSTT. COMMR. (CT), LTU v. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE 317
reopen the decision of the Taxing Authorities on question of fact. The juris-
diction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched
in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions ex-
cept the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles.
But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary: it is not exercised merely be-
cause it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it
will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort that
jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be ob-
tained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not
entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226, where the petitioner has an alter-
native remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally effica-
cious remedy. Again the High Court does not generally enter upon a deter-
mination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence
to establish the right to enforce which the writ is claimed. The High Court
does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal,
to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226
trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it
is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in anoth-
er jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High
Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave
the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.”
(emphasis supplied)
We may usefully refer to the exposition of this Court in Titaghur Paper Mills Co.
Ltd. &. Anr. v. State of Orissa &. Ors. [(1983) 2 SCC 433], wherein it is observed
that where a right or liability is created by a statute, which gives a special reme-
dy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute must only be availed of.
In paragraph 11, the Court observed thus : -
“11. Under the scheme of the Act, there is a hierarchy of authorities before
which the petitioners can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts
complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the
Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the
petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer a
further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act,
and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question of law for the opinion
of the High Court under Section 24 of the Act. The Act provides for a complete
machinery to challenge an order of assessment, and the impugned orders of assess-
ment can only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a peti-
tion under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is now well recognised that where a
right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing
it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. This rule was
stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Co. v.
Hawkesford [(1859) 6 CBNS 336, 356] in the following passage :
There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established
founded upon statute. . . . But there is a third class, viz. where a liabil-
ity not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the
same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it....
The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not
competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the
second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and ad-
hered to.

GST LAW TIMES  21st May 2020  71