2020 (12) TMI 126 - 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 Appellate Authority under Customs Act, 1962; Petitioner filing Writ Petition challenging order passed by Respondent.

The judgment delivered by Mr. Justice P.D. Audikesavalu of the MADRAS HIGH COURT pertains to a case where the Respondent had passed an order for confiscating goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The order allowed the Petitioner to appeal against it under Section 129-A of the Act before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) within three months. However, the Petitioner chose not to pursue this statutory remedy and instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the Respondent's order. The Court noted the absence of any acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for bypassing the alternative remedy provided under the statute. Citing the legal position outlined 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 short-circuit or circumvent statutory procedures. It stated that statutory remedies should be exhausted unless they are entirely unsuitable for extraordinary situations. The Court highlighted that matters involving revenue with available statutory remedies do not warrant bypassing such remedies. It also noted the prevalent practice of filing petitions under Article 226 solely for obtaining interim orders and prolonging proceedings, which it deemed necessary to discourage. Consequently, the Court refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the controversy and dismissed the Writ Petition as it could not be entertained. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed without any costs incurred.