IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, while deciding the Writ Petition No. 3296 of 2009, on 07/09/09, in re: SAMRUDDHI INDUSTRIES vs CESTAT, MUMBAI, it was observed as follows:

QUOTE: Making any observation on these issues in the present writ petition arising out of an order refusing complete waiver would amount to pre-empting the discussion and decision which may be appropriately required to be taken by the appellate Tribunal. Should this Court express a view which Tribunal may eventually find untenable, it would have to virtually overrule a judgement of a constitutional Court, which may be embarassing. Hence, apart from the fact that the Tribunal is not shown to have passed a perverse or untenable order, it is not shown that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, in order to justify invocation of superintendence jurisdiction or power to issue a Writ of Certiorari. The petition is therefore dismissed. UNQUOTE.

[for full text of the judgement please visit http://www.taxesinindia.com and click on the citation taxind_2009_hc_bom_wp_3296]

HIGH COURT ORDERS

VENKATRAMAN RAGGHUPATHY, Web admin.

HIGH COURT JUDGEMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL COURT, PERVERSE OR UNTENABLE ORDER, SUPERINTENDENCE JURISDICTION, WRIT OF CERTIORARI