2024 (4) TMI 185 - HC - Customs

Delay in Filing Appeal Leads to Dismissal; Court Upholds Finality of Orders Due to Appellant's 7-Year Lapse.

The HC dismissed the writ appeal due to the appellant's significant delay in filing under Article 226 and failure to approach the First Appellate ... Petition against dismissal order of Learned Single Judge - Appeal filed belatedly after the period of condonation in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- While the approach of the appellant before this Court itself was more than seven years after the order of appellate authority, the appellant did not even approach the First Appellate Authority within the time permitted under the Customs Act. It is trite that when the statute prescribes a period of limitation for approaching the appellate authority and the assessee does not approach the appellate authority within the time granted under the statute, the scheme of finality accorded to the statutory orders cannot be ignored by the High Court when exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart this Court cannot also ignore the long delay in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus in any view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Learned Single Judge. The writ appeal fails and is therefore dismissed. Issues involved:The judgment involves the issue of delay in approaching the court under Article 226 and the impact of belated filing of appeals under the Customs Act.Issue 1: Delay in approaching the court under Article 226The appellant was aggrieved by a judgment where the Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition due to delay. The appellant was intercepted by customs officials upon returning from UAE in 2014, leading to the confiscation of gold chains. Despite the order of confiscation in 2014, the appellant filed a belated appeal in 2015, which was dismissed. The appellant then approached the court seven years later through a writ petition. The Learned Single Judge found the approach under Article 226 barred by latches due to the delay in filing the appeal. The court held that the long delay in approaching the court cannot be ignored, especially when the appellant did not even approach the First Appellate Authority within the prescribed time under the Customs Act. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition due to the delay in approaching the court under Article 226.Issue 2: Impact of belated filing of appeals under the Customs ActThe appellant argued that the delay in approaching the court should not prevent the appellant from agitating the case on merits. However, the court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the appellant's approach to the court was more than seven years after the appellate authority's order and the appellant failed to approach the First Appellate Authority within the statutory time limit. The court highlighted that when the statute sets a limitation period for approaching the appellate authority and the assessee fails to do so within that time, the finality of statutory orders cannot be disregarded by the High Court under Article 226. Additionally, the court noted the significant delay in approaching the court under Article 226, further justifying the dismissal of the writ petition. Ultimately, the court found no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ appeal.This summary provides a detailed overview of the judgment, outlining the issues involved and the court's reasoning for dismissing the writ appeal.