‘Don’t approach High Court directly without exhausting appeal provisions’

The Madras High Court slammed litigants for rushing to it without exhausting the appeal remedies available to them as per the statutes. Justice SM Subramaniam made this observation while setting aside a batch of writ petitions moved by various traders dealing with gold and gems challenging the Customs re-assessment.

Reiterating that the very purpose of the statutory appeal was to scrutinise the orders passed by the original authorities, Justice Subramaniam said, “The High Court cannot encourage such practice and the appellate remedy contemplated under the Act is to be exhausted in all circumstances. Only under extraordinary circumstances, in order to mitigate injustice, the High Court can intervene and not otherwise.”

The petitioners had contended that the original authority to issue such show-cause notice was Appraisers or Assistant Commissioners or Deputy Commissioners of Customs. However, the notices were issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in some cases and Special Investigation Intelligence Branch for Customs in few others. It was also argued that when the jurisdiction of intelligence agencies was questionable, the entire proceedings were liable to be quashed. So the question of exhausting the appellate remedy did not arise, they added.

However, Justice Subramaniam said under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not expected to usurp the powers of the appellate authorities by adjudicating the merits of the matter on documents and evidences.

“In common parlance, statutes contain appeal provisions. In some of the statutes, there are two-tier appeal provisions in order to ensure that the facts, grounds and evidences are appreciated, and the grievances are redressed in the manner known to law,” Justice Subramainam said while noting that jurisdictional errors were rectifiable and should not result in exoneration of liability. He added that writ petitions were filed in order to avoid the pre-deposit, which is contemplated under the statute.

However, Justice Subramaniam said under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court was not expected to usurp the powers of the appellate authorities by adjudicating the merits of the matter on documents and evidences