M/S.Maithri Advisors And Planners Pvt. Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE V. RAMASUBRAMANI AN & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE P. KESHAVA RAO W RI T PETI TI ON No.1 1 6 8 3 of 2 0 1 9 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice V. Ramasubramanian) The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging a final order passed by the CESTAT. 2.

Heard Mr. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B. Narasimha Sharma, learned senior standing counsel, takes notice for the revenue.

3.

As against the order impugned in this writ petition, the petitioner has a remedy of appeal to this very High Court. We do not know why the petitioner has chosen to come up by way of this writ petition. When the statute provides for remedy of appeal on a substantial question of law, as against the very same order to the very same Court, writ cannot be maintained.

Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Office is directed to return the original impugned order to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to file regular appeal before this Court. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

_____________________ V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J ________________ P. KESHAVA RAO, J June 13, 2019 DSK