The Punjab State Cooperative Supply And Marketing Fed. Ltd v. Appellate Authority And ORS
!"
!$% &
"'
& "
(
!"
$ )
!"
$ *
%# &
'
$ *((
$
( ((
!"
$ +*,
"
$ +
( )
$ ),
*
$ ,+,
+ )
*
$
( *(
* )
$ *(*
$
$ & - .. / +0)0
" /
1%
"0 $!2
!& "
2
"
3
1%
"0 $!2
&
4 & ,- & # ! . /
% 0 ( &
"
&+
56. 2.7 89:
$0
9 *, .
) ; 9;
. -.9.7 97 8. 669.. <.7 . - 9;
.
# & # ( ! #
*) .
+ ; 9;
. -.9.7 97 8. 669.. <.7 . - 9;
.
# & # ( -! #
( . 669
By this common order the aforementioned Letters Patent Appeal(s) are being decided. For the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from LPA-1226-2025.
2.
- ! 0# 23 4546 ( ( # (
# ! ! !
!
# !!# # !# !
+
( ( (
-888 -8
! #
# ! # - & ! # ! # 69 ! !" &2:94.! &;
</ #
# ! (
( # 22 452= .
>-2/ # - (
# !$ 2&?9&4?4@- ( 25A
?
& !
! ( 4?
452=.
>-4/ ( !244 !
#
( # ?5
# 9! !
!( ?5 ! !!# # (! ! & !?5 # # 8 ( & # ! ( ?5 (## > ?5 !
245 &! !!# # ( !
!245
=
0# !
# ! . ==..
!:
4<. >5 9? 2=. 49. 5=
9 .=.:
, )( + ># ! (
# #
! ! # (
!# # #( #
> # ! #,- "We may now revert to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd. (supra), which had adopted the view taken by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.19 and also of the Karnataka High Court in Phoenix Plasts Company vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeal), Bangalore. The logic applied
in these decisions proceeds on fallacious premise. For, these decisions are premised on the logic that provision such as Section 31 of the 1995 Act, cannot curtail the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. This approach is faulty. It is not a matter of taking away the jurisdiction of the High Court. In a given case, the assessee may approach the High Court before the statutory period of appeal expires to challenge the assessment order by way of writ petition 19 AIR 2015 Guj 97 20 2013 (298) ELT 481 (Kar.) on the ground that the same is without jurisdiction or passed in excess of jurisdiction by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction including in flagrant disregard of law and rules of procedure or in violation of principles of natural justice, where no procedure is specified.
The High Court may accede to such a challenge and can also non<suit the petitioner on the ground that alternative efficacious remedy is available and that be invoked by the writ petitioner. However, if the writ petitioner choses to approach the High Court after expiry of the maximum limitation period of 60 days prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act, the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course. Doing so would be in the teeth of the principle underlying the dictum of a three<Judge Bench of this Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (supra).
In other words, the fact that the High Court has wide powers, does not mean that it would issue a writ which may be inconsistent with the legislative intent regarding the dispensation explicitly prescribed under Section 31 of the 2005 Act. That would render the legislative scheme and intention behind the stated provision otiose."
:
8(! ! ! # ## # ! # # ( 0# !
# ! 9? 2=. 49. 5=
9 .=. 56 ( ( & ( do not find any
+ infirmity or perversity in the judgment of the Single Bench warranting interference in the appeal.
10.
Consequently, all the above-mentioned Letters Patent Appeals being devoid of merit stand dismissed.
# # . /
! ##
!& "
2
"
3
$!&
&
4 &
$!&
575 +:
B @ / C @D B
, C @D