Dismissed

M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. (P) Ltd., v. Union of India

Telangana HC16 Feb 2017WP/5310/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order under the Finance Act admitting an alternative CESTAT appeal. Court held the petition must bypass the jurisdiction and direct petitioner to approach CESTAT, allowing conditional delay condonation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner directed to approach CESTAT with potential for delay condonation if filed within four weeks.

M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. (P) Ltd., Vs Union… — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶2

Writ Petition No.5310 of 2017

¶3

Order: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)

¶4

As against an Order-in-Original passed under Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Section 111 of the Finance Act, 2013, the petitioner has come up with the above writ petition.

¶5

Heard Mr. B.Chandrasen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

Mr. B.Narasimha Sarma, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents.

¶7

The petitioner admittedly has an alternative remedy of appeal to the CESTAT, under Section 86(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. But the petitioner seeks to bypass the alternative remedy of appeal on the ground that he made a declaration under a scheme known as VCES Scheme and that the same was rejected for non-compliance with the conditions prescribed for the scheme. According to the petitioner, after having rejected the application, the proceedings cannot be initiated under Section 73.

¶8

But the above contention can be as well raised by the petitioner before the CESTAT. The aforesaid contention, even if it is valid, does not strike at the very root of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, to enable us to allow the petitioner to bypass the alternative remedy of appeal. Therefore, the

¶9

¶10

petitioner should go only before the CESTAT, without availing of which remedy, the petitioner cannot come up before us.

¶11

It appears that the impugned order dated 24-10-2016 was served on the petitioner on 19-11-2016. The period for filing an appeal would expire by 17-02-2017. However, the CESTAT has power to condone the delay up to 90 days. Therefore, while dismissing the writ petition, we make it clear that if the petitioner files an appeal within 4 (four) weeks, the CESTAT shall condone the delay on an application taken out by the petitioner without standing on formalities and entertain the appeal. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. No costs.

¶12

16^th February, 2017. Ak

¶13

¶14

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND

¶15

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE J.UMA DEVI

¶16

Writ Petition No.5310 of 2017

¶17

(per VRS, J.)

¶18

16^th February, 2017. (Ak)

M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. (P) Ltd., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Vijay Mining and Infra Corp. (P) Ltd., v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/s.Arun Ispat Udyog Ltd.

The Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs Shri anil Goyal

Mr. Baddula Papaiah Vs High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of

N. Saicharan Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Wood Tunes Enterprises Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-Iv Enforcement Wing

M/s. Datta Sai Oil Mill, 16/130, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer - I, Kadapa