TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected in view of the availability of an equally efficacious appellate remedy; (ii) whether the challenge to the notification on the ground of arbitrariness disclosed any substance.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected in view of the availability of an equally efficacious appellate remedy.
Analysis: The appellant had an appellate remedy against the confiscation and penalty order. The existence of a possible requirement of pre-deposit did not justify bypassing that remedy. The Court also indicated that the Tribunal would not be expected to grant interim release of the confiscated material in the circumstances.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and the order relegating the appellant to appeal was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the notification on the ground of arbitrariness disclosed any substance.
Analysis: Although the notification was attacked as conferring arbitrary power on the committee, the extracts placed before the Court showed discernible parameters guiding the committee's discretion. The Court found no basis to treat the notification as conferring unguided or unfettered power. The contention that an amended notification applied at the relevant time was left open for the appellate forum.
Conclusion: The constitutional challenge was held to be without substance.
Final Conclusion: The appellant was left to pursue the statutory appeal, and the writ petition was not entertained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an effective statutory appeal is available, a writ petition will ordinarily not be entertained, and a notification will not be struck down as arbitrary if it contains discernible regulatory parameters guiding the exercise of discretion.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
