The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that in revenue matters, when an effective alternative remedy is available, a writ is not ordinarily maintainable, and the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction.

S. Manikumar, J.

1. Being aggrieved by the order in original No. 03/2017 (DC-S-Tax) dated 31.01.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Erode-II Division, Erode, writ petition has been filed on the grounds inter alia that action taken by the respondent is barred by limitation. Respondent a quasi judicial authority, has failed to give reasons. There is also a denial of opportunity. Adverting the pleadings and submissions, vide order dated 16.08.2017 in W.P. No. 19626 of 2017, the writ Court, at paragraph Nos. 4 to 7, ordered as hereunder.

"4. The first hurdle, the petitioner has to cross is to satisfy this Court the Writ Petition is maintainable, despite existence of an alternate remedy. In a long line of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has deprecated the practice of Writ Courts interfering in matters, where there are efficacious alternate remedy provided under the relevant statute, especially in Revenue matters.

5. It is true that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out exceptions and permitted parties to bypass the remedy provided under the statute and maintain a challenge by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus the petitioner should be able to bring his case under any one of the exceptions, which have been carved out to maintain this Writ Petition despite of existence of an appellate remedy.

6. Admittedly, the petitioner does not question the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue the show cause notice and pass the impugned order. Infact, the petitioner submitted to the jurisdiction and filed their reply to the show cause notice and participated in the adjudication. Secondly, the plea that there has been violation of principles of natural justice as the respondent had afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner after receiving the reply to the show cause notice. Whether such opportunity is to the satisfaction of the petitioner or not and whether it can be construed as denial of reasonable opportunity is again a pure question of fact. Thirdly, there is no allegation of mala fides against the third respondent to justify the challenge to the impugned order invoking the extraordinary remedy of this Court.

7. Thus, when there is no challenge to the impugned proceedings on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction and the respondent having afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and whether it is to the satisfaction of the petitioner or not being a factual issue and in the absence of plea of malafide, the petitioner has to necessarily avail the alternative remedy provided. Further more, the nature of transaction and the documents which were relied on for the purpose of availment of CENVAT Credit are factual matters. This again has to be agitated before an authority, which is the fact finding authority, which can re-appreciate all the documents and records and can take a decision in the matter. Thus, there are no justifiable grounds to entertain the Writ Petition as against the impugned order."

2. While dismissing, writ Court has granted permission to file an appeal before the appellate authority, if so advised. Being aggrieved, instant appeal is filed on the grounds inter alia

"(a) Writ Court has come to an erroneous conclusion that the petitioner had not questioned the jurisdiction of the respondent to issue show cause notice and pass impugned Order, per contra, the appellant had specifically raised the contention that the impugned proceedings have been passed without authority and that the respondent had gone beyond the scope of the notice issued.

(b). Writ Court has erred in holding that there was no plea of malafide. The appellant had specifically contended that the invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act was unwarranted and a mere change of opinion cannot be the basis for invoking the same.

(c) Writ Court has failed to consider that the extended period cannot be invoked in the present case, as