IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.3857 OF 2019 (T-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. ADARSH DEVELOPERS NO.10, VITTAL MALLYA ROAD, BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER SHRI B.M. JAYESHANKER (BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR B., ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 2 . CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE & CUSTOMS THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI-110001 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AUDIT-1 COMMISSIONERATE TTMC, BMTC BUILDING BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560070 ... APPELLANT ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/08/2019 PASSED IN WP NO.7712/2019 (T-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE TO THE EXTENT OF DISPOSAL OF THE WRIT PETITION AS PREMATURE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenging the order dated 9th October 2018/15th October 2018 passed by the third respondent. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground of availability of efficacious remedy of a statutory appeal.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant does not dispute that a remedy of appeal is available. His submission is that as held by the Apex Court, if there is a breach of the principles of natural justice, the aggrieved party can always invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is always discretionary. The learned Single judge, after noticing that an efficacious remedy of statutory appeal is available, has declined to entertain the petition. It is not possible to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in this appeal. The exercise of discretion cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
4. We clarify that the appellant can always argue before the Appellate Authority that the time consumed in prosecuting the writ petition and the writ appeal shall be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE SN