TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 610
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ense of Customs Broker, M/s.Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., is revoked, the "G" Cards and "F" Cards issued to the employees of M/s.Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd. should be surrendered forthwith after the cases as mentioned at (i) above are over. (iii) Further, I impose a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the Customs Broker, M/s.Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Licence No.CHR/R-294/2013 (PAN No.AAGCR3940M) under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. (iv) Further, I forfeit the Security Deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/- made by M/s.Raj Brothers Shipping Pvt. Ltd., in terms of Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. 22. This order is issued without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against the Customs Broker and their employees / representatives etc., under the provisions of Customs Law or any other Act for the time being in force in the Union of India." 2. Adverting to the submissions and more particularly, to the statement of an importer that a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs was received, to be paid to the Investigating Agencies, writ Court in W.P.No.26435 of 2017 dated 10.10.2017, ordered as hereunder "3. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led 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 resorting to writ jurisdiction. (iii) The general principles of law to be followed while entertaining a writ petition, when an alternative remedy is available, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P.State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S.Pandey and Another (2005) 8 SCC 264, at para No.11 are as follows: "Except for a period when Article 226 was amended by the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976, the pow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance. (v) In Nivedita Sharma Vs. Cellular Operators Association of India and Others {(2011) 14 Supreme Court Cases 337}, the Honourable Apex Court held that, "An alternative remedy is not a bar to the entertaining of writ petition filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tute, 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 the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the reassessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon. 18. In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Chhabil Dass Agarwal Vs. Union of India {W.P.(c) No.44 of 2009, decided on....