Court dismisses challenge to excise duty notice, stresses exhaustion of statutory remedies before Article 226 relief

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging an excise duty notice, emphasizing the need to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court held that the petitioner should have responded to the show cause notice before approaching the Court, rejecting the argument that statutory remedies were inadequate. Despite claims of government inaction, the Court found no exceptional circumstances to bypass statutory procedures, ultimately dismissing the petition.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to excise duty notice under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing heavy machinery and parts, received a notice to show cause for allegedly evading excise duty under Notification No. 218/86. The petitioner claimed exemption under another notification, Annexure-3. The High Court concluded that the petition should be dismissed summarily. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should have first availed statutory remedies under the Act by responding to the show cause notice before approaching the Court. The Court cited a Supreme Court case emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The petitioner argued that the statutory remedies available were illusory, pointing to correspondence between industry representatives and the government. However, the Court held that the refusal of the Government to issue a direction in favor of the petitioner did not render the statutory remedies ineffective. The authorities under the Act are expected to decide cases fairly based on the evidence and legal provisions. The Court rejected the petitioner's claim that the statutory remedies were inadequate in this case.

Ultimately, the Court found that there was no extraordinary situation warranting bypassing the statutory remedies available to the petitioner. As a result, the petition was dismissed summarily, emphasizing the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking relief through extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

---