2024 (12) TMI 236 - HC - Customs

Court Denies Appeal for Missing Filing Deadline; Emphasizes Importance of Following Legal Time Limits.

M/s Perq Fabrics Exports Versus Union of India and Ors.

The court dismissed the petition for a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Commissioner's order due to the petitioner's failure to adhere to statutory ... Time limitation for filing appeal - dismissal of petitioner’s appeals against impugned orders on the ground that such appeals were time-barred and instituted even beyond the condonable period in Section 128 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors. vs. M/s Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [2020 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT], held that when a right of liability is created under statute by creating a special mechanism for enforcing duty, ordinarily, it is a remedy provided under the statute that must be availed of. The High Court should not normally permit the Petitioner to bypass mechanisms provided under the statute. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that delay cannot be condoned beyond the maximum condonable period provided under the statute. The Court held that where complete mechanism is provided under the act for challenging assessment orders, that mechanism alone must be followed. A Writ Petition is not maintainable so as to defeat the statutory scheme. Delays beyond the aggregate period prescribed, as the maximum condonable period, cannot be condoned by exercising powers under Article 142 or 226 of the Constitution. Nor can such delay be condoned by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Supreme Court made it clear that a party may have an arguable case on merits, but that can have no bearing on the justification for non-filing of the appeal within the statutory period. The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not approve the High Court going into the merits of the matter or holding the writ should be entertained because the party had an arguable case, despite the statutory appeal being time-barred. The Court emphasised that when a complete appellate mechanism is provided under the statute, including a maximum period of limitation, writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised to undermine the statutory regime. The ratio of the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case; based on these, no case is made to entertain this petition - this petition not entertained. Issues:Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorari to set aside Commissioner's order; Challenge of time-barred appeals; Interpretation of Section 128 of Customs Act; Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227; Consideration of Supreme Court precedent on statutory remedies and delay condonation.Analysis:The petitioner approached the court seeking substantive reliefs through a Writ of Certiorari to challenge the Commissioner's order dated 20 February 2020. The Commissioner dismissed the petitioner's appeals against original orders dated 27 February 2004, 31 August 2004, and 07 August 2008 as time-barred, beyond the condonable period under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The petitioner claimed knowledge of the orders on 21 August 2018, but appeals were instituted on 27 February 2019, exceeding the prescribed time limits.The court examined Section 128 of the Customs Act, which allows appeals within 60 days, extendable by 30 days for sufficient cause. Despite the petitioner's delay of almost 130 days, the Commissioner couldn't condone it, leading to the dismissal of appeals. The court found no legal flaw in the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing adherence to statutory timelines. The petitioner's argument of lack of opportunity to challenge orders on merits was dismissed as the petitioner failed to avail the available remedies in time.The court also considered the petitioner's plea to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However, the court cited a Supreme Court precedent emphasizing the importance of following statutory mechanisms for enforcing duties and not bypassing them through writ petitions. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted that delay beyond statutory limits cannot be condoned through writ jurisdiction or by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.In light of the Supreme Court's precedent and the statutory framework, the court declined to entertain the petition, stating that the petitioner's attempt to challenge the orders beyond the prescribed period cannot be supported. The court emphasized that when a complete appellate mechanism is provided under the statute, including a maximum limitation period, writ jurisdiction should not be used to undermine the statutory regime. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.In conclusion, the court's decision was based on the strict adherence to statutory timelines, the importance of following prescribed mechanisms for challenging orders, and the limitation on the court's jurisdiction to interfere with statutory provisions. The judgment underscores the significance of respecting statutory frameworks and not circumventing them through extraordinary writ jurisdiction.