Statutory appellate remedy bars writ intervention in revenue matters absent clear jurisdictional error or natural justice breach.

An efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars a writ petition in revenue matters under Article 226, unless there is clear lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or a gross violation of natural justice. The alleged jurisdictional defect was not shown to be manifest, and the notification did not establish that pending notices had to be concluded only by the earlier officer. Non-consideration of one reply did not amount to total denial of hearing because the later reply was considered in detail, and the limitation objection remained a mixed question of law and fact suitable for the appellate forum. The challenge to penalty under section 114A also did not justify partial writ interference, so the petitioner was left to the statutory appellate remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition challenging a customs and excise adjudication order was entertainable in view of the statutory appellate remedy and the alleged jurisdictional defect, violation of natural justice, and absence of notice for penalty under section 114A.

Analysis: In revenue matters, the availability of an efficacious statutory appeal ordinarily bars recourse to Article 226, save in exceptional cases such as lack of jurisdiction, breach of fundamental rights, or gross violation of natural justice. The petitioner's objection that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction was not shown to be clear and manifest, and the jurisdictional notification did not establish that pending notices had to be concluded only by the earlier officer. The alleged non-consideration of one reply did not amount to total denial of hearing, since the later reply was considered in detail and the limitation plea remained a mixed question of law and fact suited to the appellate forum. The challenge to penalty under section 114A also did not justify partial writ intervention because the petition attacked only part of the composite order and the petitioner had an adequate appellate remedy under the statute.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not entertainable and the petitioner was relegated to the statutory appellate remedy.

---