2020 (11) TMI 51 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay for filing appeal - sufficient cause for for delay or not - HELD THAT - There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. In this context, it has to be recapitulated here that the 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. 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:
1. Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Challenge to the order passed by the Respondent through a Writ Petition.
3. Consideration of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction.
4. Application of legal principles regarding the exercise of statutory remedies.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madras dealt with the issue of the Petitioner's failure to avail the statutory remedy of preferring an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Respondent had demanded differential duty, interest, and penalty for import of goods, which the Petitioner contested by filing a Writ Petition instead of following the prescribed appeal process. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not provide an acceptable explanation for bypassing the statutory remedy available to challenge the order. Referring to the legal position established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a previous case, the Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances demand it.

The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking recourse through writ jurisdiction, especially in matters concerning revenue where statutory remedies are available. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but emphasized the need to discourage the practice of filing petitions under Article 226 solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings. By dismissing the Writ Petition and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition without costs, the Court underscored the significance of adhering to the prescribed statutory procedures before approaching the court for relief. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal principles governing the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction and the necessity of following statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances warrant deviation from the established procedure.