Miss Lucy
← All judgments

M/S Gennex Laboratories Ltd. vs Commercial Tax Officer

Supreme Court10 July 2017R. Banumathi · Kurian Joseph

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

A party that has failed to pursue a statutory remedy available before a lower adjudicatory tribunal before seeking review or appeal in a higher court may be given an opportunity to exercise that remedy belatedly where justice and equity require, and the Supreme Court may set aside an order by the High Court and remit the matter to the tribunal for consideration on the merits, directing the tribunal to entertain a belated statutory appeal as if filed in time. When an appeal or matter before an appellate tribunal is set aside and restored, the tribunal shall, if there are multiple proceedings arising from the same dispute and remedy, consolidate them and hear them together rather than serially.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8765 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19430 OF 2015 ]

M/S GENNEX LABORATORIES LTD. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER, HYDERABAD & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8766 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16651 OF 2015 ]

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8765 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19430 OF 2015

1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case where the appellant is aggrieved

by the order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the High

Court in Writ Petition No. 1684 of 2014.

3. In the nature of the order we propose to pass in Signature Not Verified this case, we have to necessarily refrain ourselves Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2017.08.05 12:46:59 IST Reason: from any discussion on merits. Suffice only to note

that, among other things, the High Court has noted

the fact that the appellant had not availed the 2

statutory remedy open to them before the Sales Tax

Tribunal.

4. In the nature of the dispute, we are of the view

that it will be just and equitable to grant that

opportunity to the appellant, having heard the

learned counsel appearing for the State as well.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The

impugned Judgment of the High Court is set aside.

The appellant is granted a period of 30 days to

challenge the orders by filing a statutory appeal

before the Tribunal. In the event of such an appeal

being filed, the same shall be entertained by the

Tribunal as having been filed in time.

6. We make it clear that we have not considered the

matter on merits and it will be open to both sides to

raise all available contentions before the Tribunal.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8766 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 16651 OF 2015]

1. Leave granted.

2. In view of the Judgment passed in Civil Appeal

No. 8765 of 2017 above, the order passed by the Sales

Tax Tribunal is set aside. The appeal is restored to 3

the file of Sales Tax Tribunal and the same shall be

heard by the Tribunal by consolidating with the

appeal that is permitted to be filed by the Judgment

passed in Civil Appeal No. 8765 of 2017 above.

3. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of.

.......................J. [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]

.......................J. [ R. BANUMATHI ]

New Delhi;

July 10, 2017.

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free