Statutory remedy under the Customs Act cannot be bypassed through Article 226 once the reference period has expired.

A writ petition under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the Customs Act's statutory appeal and reference scheme where the petitioner failed to seek a reference under Section 130 within the prescribed time, including the available extension, and the period had expired. The article also states that Section 130C requires a reference under Section 130 to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges, so a Single Judge cannot entertain a challenge of this kind to a Tribunal order. On that reasoning, the writ petition was treated as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy by way of reference under Section 130 of the Customs Act and had allowed the prescribed period to expire, and whether a Single Judge could quash an order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in view of Section 130C of the Customs Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 129, 129A, 129B and 130 of the Customs Act provides an appeal and reference mechanism for challenging orders of the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner did not take steps within the prescribed period under Section 130 to require a reference on a question of law, and the limitation period, including the permissible extension, had expired. Where a specific statutory remedy is available, it cannot be bypassed by invoking Article 226 after the remedy has become time-barred. Further, Section 130C requires that a case referred under Section 130 be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges, indicating that a Single Judge cannot entertain a challenge of this nature to the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

---