TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Statutory appellate remedy limits writ relief for confiscation and penalty; petitioners must pursue the statutory appeal absent exceptional circumstances.</h1> Existence of a statutory appellate remedy under the Customs Act precludes routine writ intervention against orders of confiscation and penalty; the court ... Availability of alternative remedy - statutory appeal remedy under Section 128 - petition challenges the High Court's refusal to entertain a writ jurisdiction against order of confiscation and penalty. Writ jurisdiction against order of confiscation and penalty - HELD THAT:- The High Court declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that an appeal was available in law. The Supreme Court affirmed that course, refusing to entertain the special leave petitions and observing that the existence of the statutory appellate remedy warranted refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction. The Appellate Authority's separate order declining to admit the appeal for failure to make the pre-deposit was noted but was not itself adjudicated in these petitions; the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge that order before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. [Paras 2, 5, 6, 7] Writ petition rightly declined where a statutory appeal exists; SLP dismissed with liberty to challenge the Appellate Authority's order in the appropriate forum. Final Conclusion: The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed; the High Court's refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction in presence of a statutory appeal is upheld, and the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the Appellate Authority's order in accordance with law. Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in declining to exercise writ jurisdiction against an order of confiscation and penalty when an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 is available.Analysis: The petition challenges the High Court's refusal to entertain a writ petition impugning an order of confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The Court noted that a statutory appeal remedy under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 exists for challenging orders of confiscation and penalty. The High Court declined to exercise writ jurisdiction on the ground that an appeal has been provided by statute. The Special Leave Petitions before this Court were considered in the context of whether discretionary writ relief should be granted despite the existence of the statutory appellate remedy and procedural pre-deposit requirements before the Appellate Authority.Conclusion: The High Court was right to decline to exercise writ jurisdiction; the issue is decided against the assessee (petitioner).Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory appellate remedy is available to challenge orders of confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962, courts will ordinarily decline to grant writ relief and require the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy, subject to exceptional circumstances.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
