TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the Commissioner of Customs, Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, the 1st respondent herein, takes notice. 2. Writ Appeal is directed against the order made in W.P.No.19308 of 2017 dated 30.10.2017, by which, the writ Court, while declining to entertain the writ petition, against the order-in-Original No.54955 of 2017 dated 17.04.2017, granted liberty to the appellant to file statutory appeal under Section 129 A(1) of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Brief facts leading to the writ appeal are that pursuant to a show cause notice dated 04.10.2013 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, on the subject Misuse of Tariff Rate Quota Scheme in the import of popcorn maize by M/s.Haji Sattar Sons, Chennai , the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 17.04.2017, held as follows: 1. Imports made through Nhava-Sheva Port, Maharashtra, (i) I reject the duty exemption benefit of Sr.No.21 of the Notification No.21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002 claimed and extended at the time of assessment of said 05 consignments and order for recovery of Customs duty @ 50% along with applicable Educa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , New Delhi. ii. I hold that 1150 MT of popcorn maize value at ₹ 2,75,87,112/- imported vide aforesaid 09 Bills of Entry be liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962; Since the goods are not physically available for confiscation, I refrain from imposing any fine. iii. I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,42,07,363/- and interest thereon (Rupees One Crore Forty Two Lakhs Seven Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Three Only and interest thereon) under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, jointly and severally on M/s.Haji Sattar Sons, Chennai and M/s.State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., iv. I impose a penalty of ₹ 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only) on Shri Siraj Ashraf, Partner of M/s.Haji Sattar Sons under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. v. I impose a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) on Shri Imtiyaz Hussein, Partner of M/s.Haji Sattar Habib Sons under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Being aggrieved M/s.State Trading Corporation of India Limited, having its registered office at Delhi, Branch office at Chennai, filed W.P.No.19308 of 2018, for a writ of certiorari to qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011 dated 31.03.2011, relate to grant / retrieval of original licences. As stated supra, show cause notice dated 04.10.2013 has been issued for Misuse of Tariff Rate Quota Scheme in the import of popcorn maize by M/s.Haji Sattar Sons, Chennai and on adjudication, the Additional Director General, DRI, has held that the appellant herein is liable to pay penalty of ₹ 2,73,97,613/- under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, jointly and severally on M/s.Haji Sattar Sons and M/s.State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., during the course of investigation towards dues recoverable. 9. As rightly observed by the writ Court, when there is an effective and alternative remedy under Section 129 A(1) of Customs Act, 1962, it would not be appropriate to entertain a writ petition, on the disputed questions of facts. On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this court, held that, ordinarily, writ petitions should not be entertained when the statutes provide for an effective and alternative remedy, moreso, in revenue matters. Reference can be made to few decisions, in this regard. (i) In Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, the Hon'ble Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... medy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions. In our view, while dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they do not only contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all such cases, the high Court must insist that before availing remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal Case {Thansigh Nathmal Vs. Supt. of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419}, Titaghur Paper Mills Case {Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd Vs. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433} and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is crated by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. 16. In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment/reassessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... curtail jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Refer: L.Chandrakumar Vs. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 and S.N.Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594. (ii). The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 and this Court under Article 32 though cannot be circumscribed by the provisions of any enactment, they will certainly have due regard to the legislative intent evidenced by the provisions of the Acts and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the Act (Refer: Mafatlal Industries Ltd., Vs. Union of India (1997) 5 SC 536. (iii). When a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. of India (2011) 14 SCC 337. (iv). The High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance. (Refer: Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Assn. o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
