Shaik Mohammed Sadiq vs. The Commissioner Of Customs

Facts

The petitioners, Shaik Mohammed Sadiq and Shaik Arif, both students, have filed writ petitions challenging orders dated July 30, 2024, passed by the respondents (Customs authorities). These orders imposed penalties on the petitioners under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contend that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper authority or jurisdiction. Specifically, they argue that the show cause notices did not quote the relevant provisions under which penalties could be imposed, and that certain aspects like non-supply of CCTV footage were also problematic. The respondents, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, submitted that the petitioners have an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act.

Held

The Court held that while writ petitions are generally maintainable even with an alternative remedy, especially in cases of violation of natural justice or lack of jurisdiction, the present case does not warrant entertainment under Article 226. The Court noted that the petitioners could not point out any lack of jurisdiction of the competent authority, with the sole grievance being the non-quoting of relevant provisions in the show cause notices. The Court reiterated that non-quoting or wrong quoting of provisions does not render an order illegal if the authority otherwise has competence. For breaches of natural justice, the statutory alternative remedy is available. The Court emphasized that the requirement of statutory pre-deposit should not be a ground to circumvent the statutory remedy. Citing recent Supreme Court pronouncements, including PHR Invent Educational Society Vs. UCO Bank and Others, the Court stressed that entertaining a writ petition is a discretion, not a compulsion, and that the High Court should ordinarily not entertain petitions if an effective alternative remedy is available, particularly in matters of tax recovery. Therefore, the Court found the impugned orders to be appealable and declined to admit the writ petitions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under the Customs Act, 1962, considering the alleged violation of principles of natural justice and lack of authority/jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners argued that the writ petitions are maintainable for two reasons: (i) the impugned orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, citing non-quoting of relevant provisions in show cause notices and non-supply of CCTV footage; and (ii) the orders were passed without authority, jurisdiction, and competence, as the specific sub-clauses under Section 112 attracting penalties were not mentioned. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Magadh Sugar and Energy Limited v. State of Bihar. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioners have a clear remedy of preferring an appeal against the impugned orders.