2022 (2) TMI 635 - SC - Customs

Maintainability of petition before the High Court - availability of alternative remedy of statutory appeal - total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer in passing the O-I-O or not - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the writ petition before the High Court was against the Order-in-Original (O-I-O) passed by the Assessing Officer without availing the alternative remedy of statutory appeal. Though a specific plea was taken on behalf of Union of India not to entertain the writ petition against the O-I-O without availing the alternative statutory remedy available to the Assessing Officer by way of appeal, the High Court has not at all dealt with the same in detail. It cannot be disputed that there are no specific findings given by the High Court that the Assessing Officer who passed the O-I-O lack total jurisdiction. As such it cannot be said that there was total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer in passing the O-I-O. Despite the above the High Court has entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has entered into the merits of the case though the original writ petitioner did not avail the alternative statutory remedy of appeal against the order of O-I-O. At this stage, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-original writ petitioners has also fairly conceded that in that view of the matter, the respondents herein - original writ petitioners may be permitted to file the statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority against the Order-in-Original to be filed within a period of four weeks subject to complying with the other requirements while preferring the statutory appeals. However, has requested to make observations that if appeal is preferred within a period of four weeks from today the same be entertained without raising the issue of limitation and it may be suitably observed that all the contentions which may be available to the respective parties are kept open. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court dated 9-1-2020 passed in R/Special Civil Appeal No. 12550 of 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of High Court to entertain writ petition against Order-in-Original without availing statutory appeal.
2. Lack of specific findings by High Court on Assessing Officer's jurisdiction.
3. Permission for respondents to file statutory appeal within four weeks.
4. Quashing of High Court judgment and setting aside the Order-in-Original.

Analysis:

1. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition against an Order-in-Original without availing the statutory appeal. The Union of India appealed against the High Court's judgment that quashed the Order-in-Original passed by the Assessing Officer. The High Court did not provide detailed reasoning for entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the Assessing Officer availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The Supreme Court noted that there were no specific findings by the High Court regarding a total lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Assessing Officer.

2. The lack of specific findings by the High Court on the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction was highlighted by the Supreme Court. Despite the absence of clear evidence of a lack of jurisdiction, the High Court proceeded to delve into the merits of the case. The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should have considered whether the Assessing Officer had a total lack of jurisdiction before entertaining the writ petition under Article 226.

3. The Supreme Court granted permission to the respondents, the original writ petitioners, to file a statutory appeal within four weeks. The respondents were directed to comply with all requirements while filing the appeal. The Court also noted that if the appeal was filed within the stipulated timeframe, it should be considered in accordance with the law and on its merits, without raising issues of limitation. The Court allowed the respondents to file the appeal subject to fulfilling other requirements such as pre-deposit.

4. Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed and set aside the High Court's judgment dated 9-1-2020, which allowed the writ petition and invalidated the Order-in-Original. The Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition without the Assessing Officer availing the statutory remedy of appeal. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, permitting the respondents to file the statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original within four weeks, ensuring that all legal contentions remained open for consideration.

This detailed analysis of the Supreme Court judgment provides a comprehensive overview of the issues involved and the Court's reasoning for each aspect addressed in the case.