Kompalli Ravi Taja vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioners, Kompalli Mallikarjuna Rao and Kompalli Ravi Kumar, filed two writ petitions before the Telangana High Court challenging an order dated September 30, 2025, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs (Adjudicating Authority). This order confiscated gold chains valued at Rs. 12,76,080, which were seized on September 28, 2024, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on each petitioner. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to declare the order illegal and arbitrary. The revenue department raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, arguing that the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which they failed to avail within the prescribed limitation period, including the extended period. The writ petitions were filed on February 3, 2026, more than four months after the impugned order.

Held

The High Court held that the writ petitions are not maintainable. The Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CCT v. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd., emphasizing that the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal, and the failure to avail it within the prescribed period, generally bars the High Court from entertaining a writ petition. The Court noted that the petitioners had not provided any compelling circumstances that prevented them from filing an appeal within the statutory period or the extended period. Furthermore, the petitioners did not seek permission from the Court to resort to the appeal remedy while challenging the impugned order. The Court found that the writ petitions were filed more than four months after the impugned order, significantly exceeding the statutory limitation period of 60 days, which could be extended by another 30 days. The Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on judgments that permit writ jurisdiction in cases of jurisdictional error or violation of natural justice, stating that such challenges must be made within the statutory period for appeal. The Court concluded that the facts of the present case squarely fit the observations made by the Supreme Court in Glaxo Smithkline, and therefore, the writ petitions were liable to be rejected.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the expiry of the limitation period for filing such an appeal? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioners contended that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction in certain contingencies, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Harbanslal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal, and Magadh Sugar & Energy Ltd. v. The State of Bihar. They argued that the High Court can entertain a challenge if the order is without jurisdiction or passed in excess thereof, or in flagrant disregard of law or principles of natural justice. Revenue's arguments: The revenue department argued that the writ petitions are not maintainable because the petitioners had a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, which they failed to file within the prescribed limitation period (60 days) or the extended period (30 days). They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in CCT v. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Ltd. to support their contention that the writ petitions should not be entertained at this juncture.