AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ
The petitioning assessee questions the propriety of an order-in-original passed on January 14, 2020. The petitioner claims that the order was received by it on the same day.
The impugned order itself indicates on its first page that an appeal may be carried therefrom within a certain period of time upon payment of a part of the duty or penalty in dispute.
Since there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this Court is not minded to entertain the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the present petition has been carried more than three years after the receipt of the said order without any plausible explanation as to the delay. Even though, there is no period prescribed for limitation in invoking Article 226 of the Constitution, but Courts require challenges to quasi-judicial orders to be made within a reasonable time unless there is a satisfactory explanation in such regard.
The petitioner contends that the impugned order was passed completely in breach of the principles of natural justice. However, it is evident from the face of the impugned order that a show-cause notice had been issued to the petitioner on October 15, 2019. In any event, a grievance that an order has been passed without affording reasonable opportunity to the person aggrieved thereby to present his side of the case, is also a challenge that can be carried to an appellate forum.
For the reasons aforesaid, WP (C) No.43 of 2023 is not entertained. It is made clear that the merits of the matter have not been gone into. Nothing in this order will prevent the petitioner herein from approaching any appropriate forum for redressal in accordance with law.
MC (WPC) No.23 of 2023 is disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.