2016 (7) TMI 1215 - HC - Customs

Revocation of license writ petition filed maintainability statutory remedy of appeal available Held that - when the statute provides a complete machinery for redress of grievance it requires an exceptional case for the writ court to exercise discretion in favour of the aggrieved litigant. In revenue matters the writ court must be more circumspect and entertain a writ petition only if noninterference would aggravate a palpable injustice to the aggrieved litigant or if the alternative remedy is not efficacious. In such case he ought to be granted liberty to workout his remedy in accordance with the statute writ petition not maintainable appeal if filed to be decided on merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against suspension of license under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 without exhausting appellate remedy.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around a writ petition challenging the suspension of the petitioner's license by the Principal Commissioner of Customs. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner should have proceeded under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, instead of the 2013 Regulations for acts dating back to 2010. However, the Court held that such arguments should be raised before the Appellate Tribunal as per regulation 21 of the 2013 Regulations. The Court emphasized that interfering in revenue matters requires exceptional circumstances, and the petitioner should exhaust the statutory appellate remedy. The principle was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Chhabil Dass Agarwal's case (2014) 1 SCC 603.

The Court highlighted the importance of exhausting alternative remedies provided by law before seeking judicial review. It emphasized that the writ court should intervene only in exceptional cases where noninterference would lead to palpable injustice or if the alternative remedy is ineffective. The judgment emphasized that in revenue matters, the Court must be cautious and grant the petitioner the opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy. The petitioner was not granted any costs, and the writ petition was dismissed, with the petitioner being allowed to pursue the appellate remedy as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention in revenue matters. It upholds the principle that exceptional circumstances are necessary for the writ court to interfere, and the petitioner should pursue the appellate remedy provided by the law. The judgment provides clarity on the appropriate course of action for aggrieved parties in revenue-related disputes, ensuring adherence to statutory procedures and principles of justice.