Mr. Vikram Kumar Kabra vs Union Of India

Telangana High Court

Mr. Vikram Kumar Kabra vs Union Of India on 3 May, 2024

Author: N.Tukaramji

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                       AND
      THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

              WRIT PETITION No.13050 OF 2024

ORDER:

(per Hon'ble Sri Justice Sujoy Paul) Sri Padma Rao Lakkaraju, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel, representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No. 1; and Ms.B.Sapna Reddy, learned counsel, representing Sri J.V.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Income Tax Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. The challenge mounted in this petition is to the order dated 29.11.2023 passed by respondent No. 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, fairly admitted that although this order can be called in question before the appellate tribunal constituted under Section 129A of Customs Act, 1962, this petition may be directly entertained because impugned order is perverse in nature. Petitioner is not the owner of the gold and he has been made responsible for no fault on his part.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly advanced the similar contention. Despite repeated query from the Bench as to why he should not avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Tribunal, the singular answer came forward was that the order impugned is perverse. No- doubt, in certain circumstances, despite availability of alternative remedy, a writ petition can be entertained. This is discretion of the Court and not compulsion.

5. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai 1 was subsequently considered in the case of U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey and Another 2 and it was opined 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 palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."

6. If the present case is tested on the anvil of principles laid down in the case of R.S. Pandey (supra), it will be clear 1 (1998) 8 SCC 1 2 (2005) 8 SCC 264 3 like noon day that: - (i) petitioner has a statutory alternative efficacious remedy; (ii) as per petitioner's stand, impugned order is not passed by an incompetent appellate authority; and (iii) petitioner could not point out that if he is relegated to avail the said remedy, it will cause a palpable injury to him. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in view of availability of alternative remedy.

7. This petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of appeal. No costs. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

_______________________ JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL ________________________ JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI Date: 03.05.2024 Tsr/myk