The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Original for failure to exhaust alternate remedies. The petitioner alleged a breach of natural justice but provided vague and generalized claims. The Court held that the Appellate Authority is best suited to decide factual and procedural grievances, and the filing delay further justified the dismissal.

1. Petitioner’s Reliefs Limited to Prayer Clause (c) (Paras 2-3)

The petitioner had abandoned reliefs under prayer clauses (a) and (b) and focused solely on challenging the Order-in-Original dated 12 January 2023 under clause (c).

2. Availability of Alternate Remedy (Paras 4-5)

• The petitioner alleged a violation of natural justice but failed to substantiate claims.
• The Court highlighted that the petitioner has an alternate statutory remedy of appeal, and this issue could be addressed before the Appellate Authority.

3. Vague Allegations (Paras 6-7)

• The Court criticized the petitioner’s averments as vague and lacking specificity, particularly regarding claims of inadequate notice, failure to supply documents, and arbitrary decisions.
• Factual disputes, such as alleged non-collusion with vendors, were deemed better suited for investigation by the Appellate Authority.

4. Recent Judicial Precedents on Alternate Remedies (Para 8)

The Court referred to its decision in Oberoi Constructions Ltd. vs. Union of India and reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction should not be invoked unless there is no alternate remedy or extraordinary circumstances.

5. Unexplained Delay in Filing (Paras 9-10)

• The petition was filed almost a year after the impugned order, beyond the statutory appeal period, without justification.
• Although there is no strict limitation for filing under Article 226, the Court emphasized the need for reasonable filing timelines and an explanation for delays.

6. Deficient Pleadings (Para 11)

The Court noted procedural deficiencies in the petition, including vague prayer clauses, lack of specificity about the impugned orders, and poorly drafted amendments. It highlighted the responsibility of legal professionals to draft petitions properly.

7. Dismissal of Petition (Paras 11-12)

The Court declined to entertain the petition due to:

1. Failure to exhaust alternate remedies.
2. Vague allegations and pleadings.
3. Delay in filing without explanation.

Interim orders were vacated, and the writ petition was dismissed.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India:

   • Article 14: Right to Equality.
   • Article 19(1)(g): Freedom to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
   • Article 226: Writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
   • Article 300A: Right to property.

2. Statutory Remedy of Appeal: Provisions related to appeal against orders under applicable tax or commercial statutes (unspecified in judgment but relevant to impugned Order-in-Original).

Ratio Decidendi:

1. Exhaustion of Alternate Remedies: A writ petition under Article 226 cannot bypass statutory remedies unless there is a complete lack of jurisdiction, denial of fundamental rights, or other exceptional circumstances.
2. Requirement of Specific Pleadings: Petitions must clearly outline grievances, impugned orders, and specific legal claims to allow proper adjudication.
3. Unexplained Delay: Even in writ jurisdiction, unexplained delays undermine the petitioner’s case.

Subjects:

Tax law, procedural requirements for writ petitions, natural justice, and statutory remedies.

#NaturalJustice #Article226 #AlternateRemedies #TaxDisputes #WritPetition #ProceduralLaw #DelayAndLaches #ConstitutionalLaw