Writ Courts Shall Not Act As Court Of Appeal Against Decision Of Lower Court Or Tribunals To Correct Errors Of Fact: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that writ courts shall not trench upon an alternate remedy provided by statute (Income tax Act) for granting any relief, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.Similarly, writ courts shall not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the lower court or Tribunals, to correct errors of fact, observed the Division Bench...
The Bombay High Court recently clarified that writ courts shall not trench upon an alternate remedy provided by statute (Income tax Act) for granting any relief, by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Similarly, writ courts shall not act as a court of appeal against the decision of the lower court or Tribunals, to correct errors of fact, observed the Division Bench of Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Jitendra Jain.
Facts of the case:
A show cause notice (SCN) was issued regarding discounts given to the dealers, after investigation was conducted on Petitioner's transactions based on intelligence report. In the said SCN, a specific allegation was made on suppression of facts and misstatement regarding non-furnishing of outward supplies u/s 37 of CGST Act, with an intention to evade the payment of GST.
Hence, the Petitioner/ Assessee had approached the High Court challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Respondent/ Revenue seeking to centralise and show cause as to why CGST, SGST and IGST along with interest & refund should not be demanded and recovered u/s 50 & 74 of the CGST Act, SGST Act and IGST Act.
Observations of the High Court:
The Bench observed that writ courts shall not entertain a petition under Article 226, if the applicant litigant has an alternate remedy that provides an equally efficacious remedy without being unduly onerous.
Further, the writ court shall not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce the writ.
Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move to another Tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the Bench observed that the High Court cannot bypass the machinery created by the Statute.
Thus, it would be better to leave the party to seek appropriate remedy by taking resort to the said machinery, added the Bench.
Observing that the allegation of misstatement and suppression of facts require factual determination, the High Court granted time to the assessee to file reply to the show-cause notice.
At the same time, the High Court dismissed the Assessee's petition and directed the Respondent to continue with the proceedings to adjudicate the show cause.
Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: Senior Advocate Joseph Kodianthara, and Advocate Anil D'Souza
Counsel for Respondent/ Revenue: Ram Ochani, Sangeeta Yadav, and Kavita Shukla
Case Title: Apollo Tyres vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No. 15498 of 2024)
Citation: 2024 (LiveLaw) Bom 597
Click here to read/ download the Judgment