9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 878 - HC - CustomsMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - factual aspects either not considered or mistakenly considered - HELD THAT - In the present case, the petitioner has stated that there are certain violations and factual aspects either not considered or mistakenly considered. However, all these aspects could be adjudicated before the appellate authority. In this writ petition, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and file an appeal by following the procedures as contemplated and by complying with the conditions to prefer the appeal, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and in the event of filing of appeal by the writ petitioner within a period of 60 days, such appeal is directed to be entertained without reference to the period of limitation, and the matter has to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with law and by affording opportunity to the parties concerned, and the appeal has to be disposed of, as expeditiously as possible. Petition disposed off.
Issues:
Challenge to order in original dated 29.06.2016 before High Court for violation and factual aspects not considered. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an order in original dated 29.06.2016 before the High Court, seeking redressal of grievances. The preamble of the impugned order provided for appealing before the Special Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service tax Appellate Tribunal. The High Court emphasized the importance of exhausting the appellate remedy before resorting to writ petitions, as the appellate authority is competent to adjudicate both factual and legal grounds. The Court highlighted that the appellate authority is the final fact-finding authority, and the right of appeal should not be taken away unnecessarily. The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the need to exhaust the appellate remedy before approaching the High Court. It was noted that the practice of filing writ petitions to avoid pre-deposit is prevalent, but the High Court cannot encourage such practices. The Court stressed that appellate remedies should be exhausted, and High Court intervention should only occur under extraordinary circumstances to mitigate injustice. The judgment of a Division Bench further supported the view that issues involving mixed questions of fact should be adjudicated by the appellate authority under the Act. The Court reiterated that the legislative intention behind appeal provisions in statutes is to provide remedies to aggrieved persons. It emphasized that the High Court cannot adjudicate facts and merits based on documents and evidence, as the statutory appeal process is designed to scrutinize orders passed by original authorities. The Court highlighted that the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are limited to ensuring procedural compliance by competent and appellate authorities. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court emphasized that appellate remedies provided under the statute should not be bypassed through writ petitions. The Court cautioned against overburdening the High Court with writ petitions that do not exhaust statutory appeal remedies. It was emphasized that the High Court should trust institutional authorities and follow the hierarchy of institutions contemplated under statutes for complete justice. The Court concluded that the petitioners must exhaust the appellate remedy under the Customs Act within 60 days from the date of the order. The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the appellate authority and file an appeal within the specified period, which would be entertained without reference to the limitation period. The appeals were directed to be adjudicated on merits and in accordance with the law, ensuring expeditious disposal of the matters. In line with the above decisions, the writ petition was disposed of, granting the petitioner liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within 60 days. The Court directed the registry to return the original impugned order to the counsel who filed the writ petition.
|
