Annai Poly Packs vs. The Deputy Director

Facts

The appellant, Annai Poly Packs, filed a writ petition (W.P.(MD)No.5447 of 2018) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The respondents were various authorities from the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and CGST & Central Excise. The writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 01.10.2024. The Single Judge directed the writ petitioner to avail the statutory appeal remedy available before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) within thirty days. The present writ appeal (W.A.(MD)No.237 of 2025) has been filed challenging the order of dismissal of the writ petition. The appeal was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage by consent of both parties.

Held

The Court held that the learned Single Judge had rightly directed the appellant to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy available before the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Court found that a statutory appeal remedy was indeed available to the appellant. Since the appellant had approached the High Court in writ jurisdiction without first availing this available statutory remedy, the writ petition was correctly dismissed. The Court reasoned that the proper procedure in such cases is to first utilize the appellate mechanism provided by the statute. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts should generally relegate parties to statutory remedies when they are available and effective, rather than entertaining writ petitions that bypass these established procedures. The operative direction was to dismiss the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge's order. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition and directing the appellant to avail the statutory appeal remedy, despite the appellant approaching the High Court in its writ jurisdiction? The appellant contended that they had approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, implying that the alternative remedy was not an absolute bar. The appellant argued that the Single Judge should have considered the merits of the case rather than relegating them to the appellate authority. The respondents, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not record any specific arguments in the judgment, but their stance was implicitly supported by the Single Judge's order directing the appellant to pursue the statutory appeal. The core issue revolves around the High Court's discretion to entertain a writ petition when an alternative statutory remedy exists.