Alternative statutory remedy barred writ challenge to customs assessment, as exemption and commodity classification issues required departmental examination.

Writ relief against a customs assessment was held inappropriate where the dispute turned on factual questions about the nature and character of the commodity and the applicability of an exemption notification. The Court reiterated that such issues should ordinarily be examined by the departmental and appellate authorities under the Customs Act, and that Article 226 should not be used to bypass the statutory scheme. It noted that writ jurisdiction may still be invoked in exceptional cases, such as a challenge to vires or where the statutory remedy is unsuitable, but no such circumstance was shown here. The writ petitions were therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging the customs assessment and seeking exemption could be entertained despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Customs Act.

Analysis: The dispute required investigation into the facts relating to the nature and character of the commodity and the applicability of the exemption notification. The Court held that such questions were better left to the departmental and appellate authorities under the statutory scheme. It reiterated that Article 226 is not meant to short-circuit statutory procedure, and that writ relief is not ordinarily available where an effective statutory remedy exists, unless the case involves exceptional circumstances such as a challenge to vires or a situation where the statutory remedy is ill-suited. The petitioner had not shown any such exceptional circumstance and had directly invoked writ jurisdiction against the assessment order.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the circumstances, and the refusal to interfere on the ground of alternative remedy was upheld.

---