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 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.