2020 (12) TMI 1138 - HC - Customs

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before that Appellate Authority, but has instead filed Writ Petition - HELD THAT - 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 Article 226 of the Constitution. There is no acceptable explanation from the Petitioner for not having resorted to that alternative remedy provided under the statute. It is also not the case of the Petitioner that the contentions raised in this Writ Petition could not be agitated in the appeal before the Appellate Authority - this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits of the controversy involved in this case, touching upon disputed questions of fact for effectual and complete adjudication of the matter. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order in Original under Customs Act, 1962 for the year 2010-2011. Failure to prefer appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. Exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The Writ Petition challenged Order in Original No. 639 of 2012 passed by the Respondent under the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner failed to prefer an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal within the stipulated period, opting instead to file the Writ Petition. The legal position regarding the exercise of discretionary powers under writ jurisdiction was highlighted, emphasizing that Article 226 should not be used to bypass statutory procedures unless in exceptional circumstances. The Court noted the lack of a valid explanation from the Petitioner for not utilizing the statutory remedy of appeal. It was also observed that the contentions raised in the Writ Petition could have been addressed before the Appellate Authority.

The Court, considering the above, declined to delve into the merits of the case involving disputed facts for a comprehensive resolution. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed, indicating that it could not be entertained due to the failure to pursue the statutory remedy. The judgment concluded by closing the connected Miscellaneous Petitions without imposing any costs.