2020 (12) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - order not appealed, instead this petition filed beyond time limitation - HELD THAT - There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHANDAN NAGAR VERSUS DUNLOP INDIA LIMITED AND OTHER 1984 (11) TMI 63 - SUPREME COURT has succinctly explained the legal position relating to the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction and held that It is only where statutory remedies are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of extraordinary situations as for instance where the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article226 of the Constitution. But then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to bypass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Thus, this Court does not express any view on the correctness or otherwise on the merits of the controversy involved in the matter - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
- Exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction.
- Legal position regarding bypassing statutory remedies.
- Dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Madras High Court pertains to a case where the Respondent had passed an order confiscating goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The order-in-original specified that the Petitioner had the right to appeal against the decision under Section 129-A of the Act before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) within three months. However, instead of availing this statutory remedy, the Petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. The Court noted the absence of a valid explanation from the Petitioner for not utilizing the alternative remedy provided by the statute.

The Court referred to the legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Limited, emphasizing that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures. It stated that recourse to Article 226 should only be sought in extraordinary situations where statutory remedies are inadequate, such as when the vires of the statute are in question or public wrongs are intertwined with public justice. The Court highlighted the need for good and sufficient reasons to bypass statutory remedies, especially in matters concerning revenue where such remedies are available.

In line with the legal principles outlined, the Madras High Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and proceeded to dismiss the Writ Petition as it could not be entertained due to the Petitioner's failure to follow the prescribed statutory procedure of appealing before the Appellate Authority. The judgment concluded by closing the connected miscellaneous petition without imposing any costs on either party.