2020 (12) TMI 1139 - 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 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 dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Respondent under the Customs Act, 1962. The Petitioner was required to appeal under Section 129-A of the Act within 3 months from receipt before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the Petitioner did not appeal but filed this Writ Petition on 06.02.2013. The Supreme Court has emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to bypass statutory procedures unless statutory remedies are unsuitable for extraordinary situations or public wrongs. The Court must have good reason to bypass statutory remedies. The Petitioner failed to provide an acceptable explanation for not using the alternative remedy provided by the statute. The Court noted that the vast majority of petitions under Article 226 are filed to obtain interim orders and prolong proceedings.

The Court declined to delve into the merits of the case due to the failure to use the statutory remedy. The judgment dismissed the Writ Petition as it could not be entertained. The connected Miscellaneous Petition was also closed with no costs awarded. The judgment highlights the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through writ jurisdiction.