Ms Maharaja Spices v. Haryana Govt Excise And Taxation Department



 



     

  

  





!"

 ##

$ %

& 

($# )*

 + * "

#,#

 - "#

   

      

  

 

 #

 .#'

+"

/ .$

%0

$ 10 2#

 $ !0 / .$

"##

 !

%# ('

4/ ! .(/ & 



 ! "# $  '

"##

##0

   #  

.*%  "

 !# 6

& 

(

 !$

+ *

.#/

 "

 7'

"#

8 "##

 %

0%,#

11#

""4 "$ 

$ # 7

  7'

%# #

4 %#0 "0

%

$# #0

,

.440 #

, 1

7



11 %#0
(- %0

#

7 #

 11

# 7 ,"4 

"

#'

" #

"##

8 1%#

%7,#

4$ # 7 $ #

14#

2 % #

244

,"%0   #

 

/ 4% 0

7 

 7'

11 2# %#

4 #

# 2# "%$2 11

$ 9

%

#"

:#

%

"

'

"## 7 ## 



442

6

& $0

 4 "##/ 2  # 1

0% %

#1 * % # .#4


 ##%# :

9"0 $2

4#

#%#'

,'

4 #

:#

##4 " #

&0

%#

#

% #1   *



4# ,'/ *"#

*# 

 *"# %,  :#

7

4 7'

&;74

!%",
%#
  

       



%   "18. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 f the Constitution.

It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. It must be remembered that stay of an action initiated by the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities for recovery of taxes, cess, fees, etc.

public importance and disables them from discharging their constitutional and legal obligations towards the citizens. In cases relating to recovery of the dues of banks, financial institutions and secured creditors, stay granted by the High Court would have serious adverse impact on the financial health of such bodies/institutions, which ultimately prove detrimental to the economy of the nation. Therefore, the High Court should be extremely careful and circumspect in exercising its discretion to grant stay in such matters. Of course, if the petitioner is able to show that its case falls within any of the exceptions carved out in Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad AIR 1969 SC 556, Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai (1998) 8 SCC 1 and Harbanslal Sahnia and another v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others (2003) 2 SCC 107 and some other judgments, then the High Court may, after considering all the relevant parameters and public interest, pass appropriate interim order.

xxx xxx xxx xxxx

25. In Raj Kumar Shivhare v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement and another (2010) 4 SCC 772, the Court was dealing with the issue whether the alternative statutory remedy available under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 can be bypassed and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be invoked. After examining the scheme of the Act, the Court observed: "31. When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievance and that too in a fiscal statute, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. In this case the High Court is a statutory forum of appeal on a question of law. That should not be abdicated and given a go-by by a

litigant for invoking the forum of judicial review of the High Court under writ jurisdiction."

xxx xxx xxx xxx 26.

In Modern Industries v. Steel Authority of India Limited (2010) 5 SCC 44, the Court held that where the remedy was available under the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993, the High Court was not justified in entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution."



8 "##

% "# %#

*"#  *#  %, / 

#1

* % # .#4 
 ##%# :

.44

0%





$'

244 2# 4,   #

"""

%# #'

:

 #% , #*/ " # "##

 ,

 2#

47#'

"##

4

4# ,'

 

, 7

4 #

  2#

2

" $ 

   

" 

  $







 #

" 90

<

= >

 # "# 74<

= >