Nasim Aktar Choudhury vs. The Union Of INDIA And 5 Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Nasim Aktar Choudhury, filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court challenging an Order-in-Original dated 23.02.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs [Preventive], N.E.R., Shillong, and an Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner [Appeals], CGST, Central Excise and Customs, Guwahati. The petitioner was aggrieved by these orders. The impugned Order-in-Appeal was appealable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, read with Rule 6 of the Customs [Appeals] Rules, 1982, before the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Calcutta.

Held

The Court held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not ordinarily to be entertained when an adequate, alternative, and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available. The Court noted that the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.10.2024 was appealable under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, to the Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The reasoning was based on established precedents from the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court, which emphasize exhausting statutory remedies before approaching the writ court. The Court did not entertain the writ petition at this stage. The petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Since the normal period of limitation had expired, the petitioner was also permitted to prefer an application before the Appellate Tribunal for condoning the delay, showing cause for not presenting the appeal within the statutory period. The Court directed that the Appellate Tribunal shall consider such an application for condoning delay and the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.

Key Issues

1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when an adequate, alternative, and efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the writ petition was maintainable. The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel for Customs and GST, contended that a writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative statutory remedy exists. They relied on a line of decisions from the Supreme Court and the Gauhati High Court, including The State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. M/s Commercial Engineers and Body Building Company Limited, The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax and others vs. M/s Commercial Steel Limited, The State of Maharashtra and others vs. Greatship [India] Limited, Writ Appeal no. 188 of 2022 (M/s Sailaja Commercial Construction Private Limited vs. the Union of India and others), and Writ Petition [C] no. 7378/2023 (M/s Brahmaputra Television Network vs. The Union of India and others).