2020 (12) TMI 129 - 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:
1. Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
3. Discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The Respondent had passed an order for confiscating goods under the Customs Act, 1962, providing the Petitioner with the right to appeal under Section 129-A of the Act before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). However, the Petitioner did not utilize this statutory remedy and instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. The Court noted the absence of an acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not pursuing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, emphasizing the principle that Article 226 should not be used to bypass statutory procedures unless extraordinary circumstances exist, such as questioning the vires of the statute or when public justice demands it. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the Court highlighted that matters involving revenue with available statutory remedies are not suitable for Article 226 intervention, discouraging the misuse of writ petitions for interim orders prolonging proceedings.

2. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case due to the Petitioner's failure to exhaust the statutory remedy before CESTAT. It underscored the importance of respecting statutory procedures and the limitations of Article 226 jurisdiction, especially in matters concerning revenue where alternative remedies are available. By dismissing the Writ Petition, the Court upheld the principle that statutory remedies should be pursued before seeking extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction, ensuring the proper administration of justice and discouraging the misuse of legal processes for undue delays.

3. The judgment serves as a reminder of the legal position that Article 226 should not be used to circumvent statutory procedures, especially in cases where alternative remedies exist under the law. By emphasizing the need for good and sufficient reasons to bypass statutory remedies, the Court underscored the importance of upholding the rule of law and preventing abuse of legal processes. The dismissal of the Writ Petition without expressing any view on the underlying controversy reinforces the principle that statutory avenues must be exhausted before seeking extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction, promoting efficiency and fairness in the legal system.