Writ jurisdiction over appealable fiscal orders is ordinarily declined when the statutory appeal is barred by unexplained delay.

A writ challenge to an appealable fiscal adjudication order will ordinarily not be entertained where the statutory appellate remedy has been allowed to lapse by delay and no satisfactory explanation is offered. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 without filing the appeal within the prescribed time, and the delay was left unexplained. In these facts, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction and rejected the petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition challenging the order-in-original deserved to be entertained when the petitioner had not availed the statutory appeal within limitation and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Analysis: The petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against an appealable adjudication order, but the statutory appellate remedy was not pursued within the prescribed time. The record showed that the writ was filed long after expiry of the limitation period and no adequate explanation was furnished for the failure to file the appeal. In these circumstances, the Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the facts presented and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ court will ordinarily not entertain a challenge to an appealable fiscal adjudication order where the statutory appellate remedy was allowed to lapse by delay without satisfactory cause.

---