Telangana High Court
M/S Alaya International Private … vs The Directorate General Of Goods And … on 29 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION Nos.465, 481 and 530 of 2025
COMMON ORDER:
(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri K.R.Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel representing
Sri Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
CBIC for respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 7.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions involved,
on the joint request, these matters were analogously heard on
admission.
3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.465 of 2025. In this
petition, the challenge is mounted to the appellate order dated
26.06.2024, whereby the Order-in-Original No.66 of 2019, dated
05.09.2019 was affirmed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although
there exists a statutory alternative remedy under the Customs
Act, 1962, to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal, in view of the
judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Whirlpool
2
Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1, the Writ
Petition is very much maintainable, more so, when principles of
natural justice were grossly violated.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the
petitioner has an efficacious statutory alternative remedy. He
further submits that these petitions have not been filed within the
statutory time limit prescribed to approach the Tribunal and
therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith
Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. 2, the Writ Petitions cannot be
entertained.
6. Heard the parties at length.
7. This is not in dispute that the petitioner had a statutory
efficacious alternative remedy to assail the appellate order dated
26.06.2024 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the
petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) submits that if the
1 (1998) 8 SCC 1
2 (2020) 19 SCC 681
3
principles of natural justice are violated, the Writ Petition is
maintainable.
8. In our considered opinion, there cannot be any quarrel on
the question of ‘maintainability’ of the petition. The difference of
‘maintainability’ and ‘entertainability’ is considered in extenso by
the Supreme Court in the case M/s. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v.
Excise and Taxation Officer – cum – Assessing Authority 3.
Every petition, which is maintainable, as a compulsion, is not
required to be entertained. The singular argument advanced by
the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain these petitions
is that the principles of natural justice were breached and thus, in
view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool
Corporation (supra), these petitions can be entertained.
9. The judgment in Whirlpool Corporation (supra) was
subsequently considered by the Supreme Court in U.P. State
Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey 4 and it was held as under:-
“17. …But normally, the High Court should not
entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is
something more in a case, something going to the root
of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which
would show that it would be a case of palpable3 (2023) 1 SCC 443
4
(2005) 8 SCC 264
4injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt
the remedies provided by the statute….”
10. In the aforesaid judgment, the previous judgment was
distinguished and it was made clear that mere breach of principles
of natural justice will not be sufficient to entertain a petition.
Something more must be established which goes to the root of the
matter or assails the question of competence of the authority
itself. The petitioner has raised no argument about the
competence of any authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner
also could not point out that if the petitioner would have availed
the remedy before the Tribunal, it would have caused any palpable
injustice to the petitioner.
11. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated
10.04.2024 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v.
UCO Bank 5, disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in
W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division
Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition, despite availability
of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely
because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain
5
(2024) 4 S.C.R. 541
5
a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition
and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under:
“15. It could thus be seen that, this Court has
clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not
entertain a petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution if an effective remedy is available to
the aggrieved person. It has been held that this
rule applies with greater rigour in matters
involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types
of public money and the dues of banks and other
financial institutions. The Court clearly observed
that, while dealing with the petitions involving
challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public
dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the
legislations enacted by Parliament and State
Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto
themselves inasmuch as they not only contain
comprehensive procedure for recovery of the dues but
also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for
redressal of the grievance of any aggrieved person. It
has been held that, though the powers of the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of
widest amplitude, still the Courts cannot be oblivious
of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this
Court. The Court further held that though the rule of
exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of
discretion and not one of compulsion, still it is
difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court
should entertain a petition filed under Article 226
of the Constitution.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Thus, mere violation of principles of natural justice cannot
be a ground to entertain a petition.
6
13. In view of availability of alternative remedy, the Writ
Petitions are not entertained and accordingly, disposed of. The
petitioner may avail the alternative remedy. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
29.01.2025
sa/vs
7
37
THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT APPEAL Nos.465, 481 and 530 of 2025
(Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
29.01.2025
sa/vs