Abdul Alim, S/O.Abdullah vs. The Joint Commissioner

Held

The Court recorded the submission of the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner intended to avail the remedy of appeal provided under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, as indicated in the impugned order. Consequently, the petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The Court, accepting this submission and the endorsement made by the petitioner, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy by way of statutory appeal. For the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing such an appeal, the petitioner was granted the benefit of excluding the period from the date of filing the writ petition (October 4, 2017) to the date of disposal of the writ petition (October 5, 2017), which amounts to two days. No costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed.

Facts

The petitioner, Abdul Alim, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging proceedings dated July 6, 2017, issued by the Joint Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise. The petitioner sought to quash the imposition of penalty. The impugned order indicated that the petitioner had a remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner's counsel informed the Court that the petitioner intended to avail this statutory appeal remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the writ petition to pursue the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they wished to avail the statutory remedy of appeal as indicated in the impugned order and therefore sought to withdraw the writ petition. Respondent's contention: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the withdrawal, but the Court proceeded to record the petitioner's submission and endorsement for withdrawal.