PNP 1 WP9399-29.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9399 OF 2011 Hexaware Technologies Ltd. ..Petitioner. versus The Union of India ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Prakash Shah with Mr. Prasad Paranjape i/b PDS Legal for the Petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly for the Respondent. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & A. A. SAYED, JJ. 29 November 2011. P.C. : The Petitioner has an alternate remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 23 June 2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Division-V, Mumbai. The submission of the Petitioner is that the directions contained in operative clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6 were in breach of the principles of natural justice, and hence this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. 2. The Petitioner had by its letter dated 7 June 2011 waived the issuance of a show cause notice stating that if the Petitioner had availed of CENVAT credit on certain input services which were found ineligible for refund under the provisions of law, the same may be adjusted from the claim and refund may be sanctioned for the PNP 2 WP9399-29.11.sxw remaining amount. According to the learned counsel, the Petitioner had waived the issuance of a notice to show cause only for the aforesaid purpose. On the other hand counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted that once the Petitioner had waived the notice to show cause, it was open to the adjudicating officer to pass an order on the refund application and to pass consequential directions. 3. We are of the view that this is not a case where it can be held that there is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice on the admitted facts as they stand. Hence, conscious as we are of the fact that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may in a given circumstance be exercised despite an alternate remedy where the order suffers from want of jurisdiction, or if the principles of natural justice are violated or upon a violation of fundamental rights, we do not consider that this case would fall for the exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226. The Petitioner has an alternate remedy in appeal in which all questions can be considered on merits. We dismiss the Petition only on that ground clarifying that we have had no occasion to express any opinion on the correctness of the impugned order passed by the adjudicating officer. 4. In the event that the Petitioner files an appeal within one week from today as stated on behalf of the Petitioner by the learned counsel, the Commissioner (Appeal) shall expeditiously dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months. PNP 3 WP9399-29.11.sxw There shall be no order as to costs. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (A. A. Sayed, J.)