2024 (11) TMI 754 - HC - Customs

Challenges to show cause cum demand notice and the Order-in-Original - averment to bypass the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies - HELD THAT - The averments are blissfully vague, and based on such averments, we do not deem it appropriate to entertain the present petition where, admittedly, the Petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedies available to them. No case is made to bypass the normal rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. Recently, this Court, in the case of Oberoi Constructions Ltd. 2024 (11) TMI 588 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT has considered several precedents on the subject and held that unless good grounds are made out, there is no question bypassing alternative remedies available under Act. As noted above, based on vague allegations that the show cause notice / impugned orders are without jurisdiction or that some impropriety is involved, the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies cannot be bypassed. Therefore, we decline to entertain this petition. However, we leave it open to the Petitioners to avail themselves of the alternative remedies available under the Act. Further, suppose the Petitioners file an appeal against the impugned order dated 23 January 2024 within four weeks from today by complying with the necessary legal formalities. In that case, we direct the Appellate Authority to consider such appeal on its merits, given that this petition was instituted on 21 May 2024 and was pending to date.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to show cause cum demand notice and Order-in-Original, Alternative remedy of appeal available, Bypassing rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies, Comparison with Gujarat High Court decision, Precedents on bypassing alternative remedies.

Analysis:
The petition challenged a show cause cum demand notice and an Order-in-Original. The court noted that the petitioners had an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available to challenge the Order-in-Original, which merged the show cause notice. The petitioners claimed that approaching the court directly was necessary due to jurisdictional and other grounds. However, the court found the averments vague and held that the petition should not be entertained when alternative remedies were available.

The petitioners relied on a Gujarat High Court decision where the court interfered with a show cause notice in similar circumstances. The court acknowledged this but emphasized that there were no pleadings or reasons in the present petition to bypass the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedies. The court referred to a recent judgment where it was held that unless good grounds were established, alternative remedies should not be bypassed based on vague allegations of lack of jurisdiction or impropriety.

Ultimately, the court declined to entertain the petition, citing the reasoning from the previous judgment. However, it allowed the petitioners to avail themselves of the alternative remedies under the Act by filing an appeal against the impugned order within four weeks. The court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its merits. All contentions, including those raised in the petition, were left open to be decided by the Appellate Authority. The petition was dismissed with liberty in the specified terms, and no costs were ordered.