TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 1296
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, on the subject "Misuse of Tariff Rate Quota Scheme in the import of popcorn maize by M/s.Haji Sattar & Sons, Chennai", the adjudicating authority, vide order dated 17.04.2017, held as follows: "1. Imports made through Nhava-Sheva Port, Maharashtra, (i) I reject the duty exemption benefit of Sr.No.21 of the Notification No.21/2002-Customs dated 01.03.2002 claimed and extended at the time of assessment of said 05 consignments and order for recovery of Customs duty @ 50% along with applicable Education Cess and I confirm the total duty amounting to Rs. 2,73,97, 613/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy three lakhs ninety seven thousand six hundred and thirteen only) under Section 28(2) and 28(8) of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest under Section 28AB / 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962, as applicable during the period of their of currency, jointly and severally on M/s.Haji Sattar & Sons, Chennai and M/s. State Trading Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi. (ii) I hold that 2415 MT of popcorn maize valued at Rs. 5,31,99,247/- imported vide aforesaid 14 Bills of Entry are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the goods are not physic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ttar & Sons under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. v. I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) on Shri Imtiyaz Hussein, Partner of M/s.Haji Sattar Habib & Sons under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Being aggrieved M/s.State Trading Corporation of India Limited, having its registered office at Delhi, Branch office at Chennai, filed W.P.No.19308 of 2018, for a writ of certiorari to quash the order of the adjudicating authority dated 17.04.2017. 5. After considering the rival submissions, and by observing that writ Court would not go into disputed questions of fact, taking note of Section 129 A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for an appeal as against an order in original and also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if an appeal has to be filed it would be out of time, writ Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, permitted the petitioner to file an appeal before CESTAT, Madras. 6. Though, by referring to the decision made in W.P.No.5120 of 2011 dated 31.03.2011, Mr.Bhiman, learned counsel made submissions to the effect that even in the said proceeding, State Trad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion, on the disputed questions of facts. On more than one occasion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as well as this court, held that, ordinarily, writ petitions should not be entertained when the statutes provide for an effective and alternative remedy, moreso, in revenue matters. Reference can be made to few decisions, in this regard. (i) In Union of India v. T.R.Verma, AIR 1957 SC 882, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that when an alternative and equally efficacious remedy is open to a litigant, he should be required to pursue that remedy and not to invoke the special jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a prerogative writ. It will be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse to interfere in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there are good grounds to do, otherwise. (ii). In C.A.Ibrahim v. ITO, AIR 1961 SC 609, H.B.Gandhi v. M/s. Gopinath & sons, 1992 (Suppl) 2 SCC 312 and in Karnataka Chemical Industries v. Union of India, 1999 (113) E.L.T. 17(SC) = 2000 (10) SCC 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where there is a hierarchy of appeals provided by the statute, the party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resort....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Constitution, a person must exhaust the remedies available under the relevant statute. 44. While expressing the aforesaid view, we are conscious that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue to any person or authority, including in appropriate cases, any Government, directions, orders or writs including the five prerogative writs for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III or for any other purpose are very wide and there is no express limitation on exercise of that power but, at the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court, which every High Court is bound to keep in view while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution. 45. It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision etc., and the particular legislation cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief. In Ram and Shyam Co. Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 3 SCC 267, this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from "Caesar to Caesar's wife", the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility. 17. In the instant case, neither has the writ petitioner assessee described the available alternate remedy under the Act, as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of the instant case. In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the writ Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned ....