9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1530X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entertained to grant relief to the petitioners by exercising the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - the petitioners are relegated to the alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order, before the authorities below within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition dismissed. - CWP No.22829 of 2018 - - - Dated:- 22-11-2018 - MR AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MR MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, JJ. For The Petitioner : Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate ORDER Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1. This order shall dispose of CWP No.22829 and 25370 of 2018, as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the issue involved in both the petitions is identical. However, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.22829 of 2018. 2. CWP No.22829 of 2018 has been filed by the petitioner under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 8.8.2018, Annexure P.13 whereby respondent No.3 Additional Commissioner of Customs (Export), New Delhi has confirmed demand of duty drawback even for the period prior to five years. Further prayer has been made for stay of the impugned order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovered print out of few emails which indicated that the petitioner had issued parallel invoices showing value of goods lower than the value declared before customs. As per overseas report, the value declared before Indian customs was 3 to 17 times more than the value declared before UAE customs. Respondent No.3 on the basis of investigation concluded that the petitioner had misdeclared value of the goods and wrongly availed duty drawback. Vide show cause notice dated 11.9.2017, Annexure P.9, respondent No.3 called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why drawback to the tune of ₹ 16,66,01,985/- should not be recovered from the petitioner. The demand had been raised for the period from 2010-11 to December 2012. The petitioner filed CWP No.38 of 2018 before this Court seeking quashing of show cause notice on the ground that demand could not be raised beyond reasonable period and it could not be more than five years. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 8.1.2018, Annexure P.10 with liberty to the petitioner to contest the show cause notice and also to make an application before the authority to decide the issue of limitation as a preliminary ground. The peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anslal Sahnia vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd ., (2003) 2 SCC 107; State of H.P. vs. Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd. , (2005) 6 SCC 499). 16. The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons vs. Income Tax Investigation Commission , AIR 1954 SC 207; Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425; Union of India vs. T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882; State of U.P. vs. Mohd. Nooh , AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Co. (P) Ltd. vs. State of Madras , AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted. ( See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs. G. Raja Nainar , AIR 1959 SC 422; Municipal Council, Khurai vs. Kamal Kumar , (1965) 2 SCR 653; Siliguri Municipality vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it. The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class. The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to. The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Ltd., 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Co. Ltd., 1935 AC 532 (PC) and Secy. of State v. Mask and Co ., AIR 1940 PC 105 It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout. The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine. 14. In Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India , (1997) 5 SCC 536 B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) 77. So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226-or for that matter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
