https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781909 SC upheld the HC's dismissal of the writ petition challenging a CEGAT order, holding that when the statute provides an alternative, equally efficacious remedy before the HC itself (here, a reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962), refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be the norm. The appellant approached the HC belatedly under writ jurisdiction instead of seeking a reference with an application for condonation of delay, despite no exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ petition also lacked essential pleadings. Finding no error in the HC's approach, SC dismissed the appeal. en-us Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2026 11:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781909 SC upheld the HC's dismissal of the writ petition challenging a CEGAT order, holding that when the statute provides an alternative, equally efficacious remedy before the HC itself (here, a reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962), refusal to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should be the norm. The appellant approached the HC belatedly under writ jurisdiction instead of seeking a reference with an application for condonation of delay, despite no exclusion of Sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The writ petition also lacked essential pleadings. Finding no error in the HC's approach, SC dismissed the appeal. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 12 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781909