https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401330 The HC dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the Petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962, by not appealing to CESTAT. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the limitations of Article 226 jurisdiction, particularly in revenue matters. It underscored that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist. The decision reinforces the principle that statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking extraordinary relief, ensuring proper justice administration and preventing misuse of legal processes for delays. en-us Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Nov 2024 13:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401330 The HC dismissed the Writ Petition, emphasizing that the Petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy available under Section 129-A of the Customs Act, 1962, by not appealing to CESTAT. The Court highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the limitations of Article 226 jurisdiction, particularly in revenue matters. It underscored that writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory remedies unless exceptional circumstances exist. The decision reinforces the principle that statutory remedies must be pursued before seeking extraordinary relief, ensuring proper justice administration and preventing misuse of legal processes for delays. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401330