Back
MANOJ MISRA, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
Simanchala sahu – Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are against the judgment(s) and order(s) of the High Court of Orissa dated 06.04.2021 and 07.04.2021 in W.P.(C) Nos. 13626 and 13624 of 2020 respectively.
3. The High Court while disposing of the writ petitions filed by the appellant(s) against the order of collector demanding payment of certain dues, directed the appellant(s) to approach the revisional authority under Section 6(3) of the ODISHA EXCISE ACT , 2008 (for short, 'the Act'). The relevant portion of the order passed by the High Court is as under:-
3. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for Opposite Parties-State points out that against the impugned order revision petition is maintainable before the Excise Commissioner in terms of
Compliance with prescribed procedure and depositing 50% of the amount demanded before filing a revision petition.
Tax assessments and revisions must rely on new materials; pre-existing information cannot justify revisional authority under Section 14(4) of the Act.
Failure to initiate the adjudication process mandates action as per the revision order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the availability of a statutory remedy under Section 11(2) of the Excise Act, 1910, after the dismissal of an appeal filed under Section 11(1).
Availability of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to maintainability of writ petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
