2020 (12) TMI 472 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Respondent - 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 where it was 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. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to prefer appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the absence of exhausting statutory remedies.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to Prefer Appeal Before the Appellate Authority
The Respondent had passed an order confiscating goods under the Customs Act, 1962, allowing the Petitioner to appeal under Section 129-A within three months. However, the Petitioner did not avail this statutory remedy but instead filed a Writ Petition challenging the order. Citing the legal position established in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise vs. Dunlop India Limited, the Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not intended to bypass statutory procedures. The Court noted the tendency of using Writ Petitions for interim orders and delaying proceedings. Consequently, the failure of the Petitioner to utilize the available statutory remedy was deemed unjustified, leading to the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226
The judgment highlighted the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It underscored that matters involving revenue and where statutory remedies exist are not suitable for direct recourse to Article 226. The Court refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case due to the Petitioner's failure to pursue the prescribed statutory appeal process. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing the need to discourage the misuse of Article 226 for obtaining interim orders and prolonging legal proceedings. No costs were awarded in this matter.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the significance of adhering to statutory procedures and exhausting available remedies before approaching the High Court under Article 226. It serves as a reminder to litigants to utilize statutory avenues for redressal before seeking extraordinary relief through writ jurisdiction, especially in matters concerning revenue and where alternative remedies are provided by law.