Alternative statutory remedy bars Article 226 writ relief in customs matters unless a recognised exception applies.

In customs and tax matters, the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 where the statute provides an efficacious appellate remedy. The settled rule is that the alternative remedy must be exhausted unless a recognised exception applies, and the mere desire for interim or immediate relief does not justify bypassing the appeal mechanism. Applying that principle, the Madras High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and directed the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy and whether the petitioner could invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India without first exhausting that remedy.

Analysis: The petition challenged an order arising under the customs law, for which an appellate remedy was available. The settled rule applied in tax and recovery matters is that where the statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy, the High Court should ordinarily not entertain a writ petition under Article 226 unless a recognised exception is shown. The judgment relied on repeated Supreme Court authority emphasising that statutory remedies must be exhausted and that bypassing the appellate mechanism is not justified merely because interim or immediate relief is sought.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue the statutory appeal remedy.

---