Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the writ petitions challenging liability to agricultural produce cess on export of prawns and shrimps ought to have been entertained despite the availability of an appellate remedy under the statutory scheme.
Analysis: The Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940 levied cess on articles in the Schedule, and its collection was governed by the Customs Act, 1962 and the rules thereunder. The record before the High Court did not contain evidence to support a finding that prawns and shrimps were not covered by the expression "fish" in common parlance. In the absence of such evidence, the High Court ought not to have gone into the merits in writ jurisdiction when a statutory appeal was available under Section 5A of the Act. The Court also made it clear that no opinion was being expressed on the substantive classification issue.
Conclusion: The writ petitioners should have been relegated to the alternate statutory remedy, and the High Court's entertainment of the writ petitions was held to be improper.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available and the writ record does not furnish evidence enabling a conclusive factual determination, the High Court should ordinarily decline writ relief and require the party to pursue the alternate remedy.