Writ not Maintainable when Statutory Appeal Ignored: Supreme Court in 29 Year Old Customs Case [Read Order]

The Supreme Court of India has upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s refusal to entertain Rikhab Chand Jain’s writ petition challenging the confiscation of silver and the penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962.

The case arose from a 1996 adjudication order by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise confiscating 294 silver chaurasas weighing 252.177 kilograms and imposing a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on Rikhab Chand Jain.

The appellant’s statutory appeal before the CEGAT ( Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal - former name for CESTAT) was dismissed in 2000 except for a reduction of penalty.

Instead of filing a reference before the High Court under Section 130A of the Act within the prescribed time, the appellant approached the High Court in 2003 by way of a writ petition challenging both orders.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

Before the High Court, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the confiscation was illegal because the seized silver did not bear any foreign markings, that the goods were seized deep inside Indian territory where customs jurisdiction did not apply, and that the adjudicating authority and the tribunal failed to give reasons while rejecting his arguments.

The Rajasthan High Court observed that the petitioner had only challenged the penalty before the CEGAT and not the confiscation, and that the statutory remedy of reference under Section 130A had not been used. The High Court pointed out that once that remedy was allowed to lapse, the petitioner could not invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge the same orders.

The High Court also explained that even on merits, the petitioner was not entitled to relief because the confiscation order had never been challenged before the appellate authority and the criminal court’s order directing return of the silver had already been set aside.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here

When the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Aravind Kumar examined whether the High Court was justified in declining writ jurisdiction. The Bench observed that when a statute provides an alternative remedy before the High Court itself, a writ petition should normally not be entertained.

The Bench explained that this rule is supported by earlier Constitution Bench decisions. The Supreme Court pointed out that the petitioner approached the High Court long after the limitation period for the statutory remedy had expired and that he could have requested condonation of delay in the reference proceedings.

The Supreme Court also observed that although the confiscation order was mentioned in the appeal memo before the CEGAT, the writ petition did not contain the basic pleading that the Tribunal failed to deal with the confiscation issue.

The Bench explained that unless the writ petition clearly states that a point was raised before the Tribunal but not decided, such a grievance cannot be examined. Because this essential pleading was missing, the High Court’s decision on merits was also upheld.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates