Aishwarya Rathore-
Published On: September 25, 2021 at 15:15 IST
The Supreme Court stated that a High Court can exercise its Writ Jurisdiction if the order of the Authority is challenged on the grounds of lack of Authority or Jurisdiction, even if an alternative remedy is available.
The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna observed, “While a High Court would normally not exercise its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available, the existence of an alternate remedy does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its jurisdiction in certain contingencies.”
In the Instant case, the Patna High Court refused to entertain the Writ Petition instituted by the Appellant on the grounds that the disagreement between the parties is factual in nature and is appropriate for adjudication under the Statutory Remedy provided in the Bihar Electricity Duty Act 1948.
The appellant claims that the State Government lacks the Authority to charge a tax on its sales of electricity to the Bihar State Electricity Board.
The Court ordered, “We accordingly allow the Appeal and set aside the Judgement of the High Court dated 18 September 2017 arising out of CWJC No 4300 of 2015.”
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is returned to the High Court for further consideration.
Also Read: Calcutta HC issues notice to Centre, State in writ petition challenging Rule 86A of CGST Rules