2020 (11) TMI 977 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - Petitioner did not prefer any appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order - HELD THAT - The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (CT) LTU, KAKINADA ORS. VERSUS M/S. GLAXO SMITH KLINE CONSUMER HEALTH CARE LIMITED 2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. Having regard to that legal position, it is not possible for this Court to express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Timeliness of filing appeal under the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the rejection of claim by the Respondent.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain a Writ Petition when the appeal was not filed within the statutory limitation period before the Appellate Authority.

Issue 1: Timeliness of filing appeal under the Customs Act, 1962

The Respondent rejected the Petitioner's claim under the Customs Act, 1962 on 02.03.2016, with the claim being despatched on 10.03.2016. The Petitioner had the right to appeal this decision under Section 128 of the Act within 60 days from the receipt of the order, extendable by a further 30 days with sufficient cause. However, the Petitioner did not file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the statutory period. Instead, the Petitioner initiated a Writ Petition on 10.01.2017 challenging the Respondent's order, which was beyond the maximum limitation period of 90 days from the order's receipt. This failure to adhere to the statutory appeal timeline led to the dismissal of the Writ Petition due to untimeliness.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a relevant case, emphasized that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition challenging an order by a Statutory Authority if the appeal was not filed within the prescribed limitation period before the Appellate Authority. In line with this legal position, the High Court in this case concluded that it could not express any opinion on the merits of the dispute due to the untimely filing of the Writ Petition. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, highlighting the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and exhausting available remedies before approaching the Court under Article 226.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of complying with statutory timelines for filing appeals under the Customs Act, 1962 and the limitations on the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when statutory remedies have not been exhausted within the prescribed periods. The dismissal of the Writ Petition due to untimeliness serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements and the importance of timely legal actions in challenging decisions of Statutory Authorities.