Case Law Details
Iot Utkal Energy Services Ltd Vs Union of India and another (Orissa High Court)
In the case of Iot Utkal Energy Services Ltd Vs Union of India and Another before the Orissa High Court, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw their writ petition and pursue an appeal before the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioner had initially filed the writ petition, seeking adjudication on a matter but was advised to take the statutory route of appealing to CESTAT.
The revenue’s counsel argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, given that there was an available alternative statutory remedy in the form of an appeal to CESTAT. The court, acknowledging the availability of this alternative remedy, decided that the matter should be resolved through the appeal process rather than through a writ petition.
As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The petitioner’s counsel requested that time be excluded for the purpose of filing the appeal and asked for the appeal to be disposed of within nine months of its admission, should the Tribunal allow the appeal. The court directed that, should the Tribunal admit the appeal, it should aim for a timely resolution, ideally within the stipulated nine months.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Mr. Mohanty led by Sridharan, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of petitioner. Mr. Mohanty submits, his client has been advised to seek statutory remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). Accordingly, his client seeks leave to withdraw and also to pray for exclusion of time for admission of the appeal in the Tribunal.
2. Mr. Kedia, learned advocate, Junior Standing Counsel appears on behalf of revenue and submits, the writ petition is not maintainable on available alternative statutory remedy.
3. In view of aforesaid, challenge in the writ petition is not up for adjudication before us, as to be taken to the Tribunal. Petitioner may plead exclusion of time for admission of its appeal. Mohanty submits, there be a direction for disposal of the appeal to be filed, within nine months from filing of it. He submits further, the writ petition was filed within prescribed time for filing appeal against the first appellate order.
4. In event the Tribunal is satisfied on the explanation for delay and admits the appeal, we request that it be dealt with as expeditiously as possible and preferably within nine months thereafter, as submitted on behalf of petitioner. Our request is on reliance thereon that it will fully cooperate to achieve expeditiously adjudication.
5. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Author Bio
