https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition where the objection was not timely raised and the matter had remained pending for years, so Article 226 jurisdiction was entertained. On the seizure issue, the Court treated the panchanama as showing seizure by customs authorities under the Customs Act, attracting the statutory burden under Section 123; it also held that taking over the articles by Gold Control authorities amounted to lawful seizure under the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner failed to explain lawful possession or displace the presumption of smuggled goods, and the challenge that the articles were not primary gold could not be raised for the first time in writ proceedings. Confiscation and penalty were upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jan 2014 07:02:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054 Alternative statutory remedy did not bar the writ petition where the objection was not timely raised and the matter had remained pending for years, so Article 226 jurisdiction was entertained. On the seizure issue, the Court treated the panchanama as showing seizure by customs authorities under the Customs Act, attracting the statutory burden under Section 123; it also held that taking over the articles by Gold Control authorities amounted to lawful seizure under the Gold (Control) Act. The petitioner failed to explain lawful possession or displace the presumption of smuggled goods, and the challenge that the articles were not primary gold could not be raised for the first time in writ proceedings. Confiscation and penalty were upheld. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242054