SC dismissed the appeal, upholding HC's refusal to entertain the writ petition under Art. 226 challenging the CEGAT order. SC held that where the statute provides an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the same HC (here, a reference under s.130A of the Customs Act, 1962), the rule is to refuse writ jurisdiction and treat its exercise as an exception. The appellant's challenge was filed well beyond the limitation period for a reference; any justification for delay should have been urged in an application for condonation under the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies via s.29(2). The belated writ, lacking basic pleadings, amounted to bypassing the statutory mechanism. HC's dismissal, both on maintainability and merits, was affirmed; appeal dismissed.
SC dismissed the appeal, upholding HC's refusal to entertain the writ petition under Art. 226 challenging the CEGAT order. SC held that where the statute provides an equally efficacious alternative remedy before the same HC (here, a reference under s.130A of the Customs Act, 1962), the rule is to refuse writ jurisdiction and treat its exercise as an exception. The appellant's challenge was filed well beyond the limitation period for a reference; any justification for delay should have been urged in an application for condonation under the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies via s.29(2). The belated writ, lacking basic pleadings, amounted to bypassing the statutory mechanism. HC's dismissal, both on maintainability and merits, was affirmed; appeal dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
