By Means Of Present Writ Petition, The Petitioner Haschallenged The Order Dated 30.06.2023 Passed By Principalcommissioner (Appeals), Customs, Cgst & Central Ex v. The Constitution Benches Of This Court In K.s. Rashid Andsons Vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, Air 1954 Sc207; Sangram Singh Vs. Election Tribunal, Kota

Court No. - 17Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 219 of 2023Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar HarjaiRespondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Finance, New Delhi And 2 OthersCounsel for Petitioner :- Himanshu TrigunaitCounsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dipak Seth Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Himanshu Trigunait, learned counsel for petitioneras well as Sri Manish Mishra, who has filed memo ofappearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Sri KrishnaLal Yadav, Avocate who has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf ofrespondent No. 1. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner haschallenged the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by PrincipalCommissioner (Appeals), Customs, CGST & Central Excise,Lucknow. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for respondent submitsthat petitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal before theCESTAT as per Section 35-B of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. He further submits that in light of the fact that efficaciousalternative remedy is available to the petitioner and writ petitionwould not be maintainable and in this regard he relied upon thejudgment of the Supreme Court passed in the case of Hon'bleApex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax andOthers Vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, 2014 (Vol. 1) SCC 603,has clearly laid down that in the taxing statute where entiremechanism has been provided, the assessee should be relegatedto the authority prescribed under the Act and the Court inexercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia should not entertain such a matter. The Apex Court heldas under : "15. Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice theprincipal of law as laid down by the Court. It is settled law thatnon-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by theHigh Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is availableis a rule of self-imposed limitation. It is essentially a rule ofpolicy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court togrant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of analternative remedy. However, the High Court to must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedyavailable to the petitioner and he has approached the HighCourt without availing the same unless he has made out anexceptional case warranting such interference or there existsufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdictionunder Article 226. 16. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid andSons vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC207; Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC425; Union of India vs. R.T. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State ofU.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataramanand Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 haveheld that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in thematter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writabsolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court issatisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate orsuitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise itsjurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, mayexercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there hasbeen a breach of principles of natural justice or procedurerequired for decision has not been adopted." 5. In light of the above, this Court is of the considered view thatpetitioner has an efficacious remedy of appeal under Section35-B of Central Excise Act, 1944 before the Commissioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground ofalternative efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Order Date :- 9.11.2023Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.)