1. Challenge to demands raised after significant delay — Writ petition under Article 226 — Alternative remedy available. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 14
2001(4) Supreme 255
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. Kirpal & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
J.M. Baxi & Co., Gujarat -Appellant
versus
Commissioner of Customs, New Kandla & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 5-6 of 2000
[Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 12329-12330 of 1999]
Decided on 3-1-2000
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that while High Courts generally avoid exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 when an alternative remedy exists, they should do so in special circumstances, such as when a demand is challenged as being time-barred and involves a substantial deposit for filing an appeal.
Subject
Writ Petition - Alternative Remedy
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ-Petition challenging validity of demand raised by respondent -Dismissed by High Court on ground that alternative remedy was available -Appeal-Normally High Court ought not to interfere when adequate alternative remedy was available-Special facts in the case that demand was raised after 16 years and involved 45 lakhs which will have to be deposited before appeal could be filed-High Court ought to have exercised jurisdiction to determine questions raised in writ petition. (Para 3)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Validity of demand raised after significant delay — Availability of alternative remedy as a bar to writ jurisdiction. (Para 2 )
3. High Court may exercise Article 226 jurisdiction despite alternative remedy in special circumstances, such as time-barred demands and prohibitive pre-deposit requirements for appeals. (Para 3 )
4. The availability of an alternative remedy does not absolutely bar the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances. (Para 3 )
5. Appeals allowed — High Court order set aside — Case remitted to High Court for decision on merits. (Para 4 )
6. When can a High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite the availability of an alternative remedy?
While normally the High Court should not interfere when an adequate alternative remedy exists, it may exercise its jurisdiction in special circumstances, such as when a demand is challenged as being barred by time and the pre-deposit required for an appeal is prohibitively high. (Para 3 )
ORDER
Special leave granted.
2. The challenge by the appellant in writ petitions filed before the High Court was to the demand which was raised by the respondents on 1st September, 1998 and 5th February, 1999. The contention of the appellant was that this demand had been raised nearly 16 years after the amount had become due from the importer on whose behalf the appellant had been acting as an agent. He challenged the validity of this demand but the High Court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that alternative remedy was available to the appellant.
3. Normally, the High Court ought not to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when adequate alternative remedy is available, but in the special facts of this case when the demand was raised and the same had been challenged on the ground that it was barred by time and where the demand is nearly of 46 lakhs of rupees which will have to be deposited before any appeal can be filed, we are of the opinion that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction and determined the questions which were raised in the writ petition on merits. In dealing with the contentions raised by the appellant, the High Court would necessarily have to consider the contentions of the respondents as well.
4. We, accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the order dated 19th July, 1999 of the High Court and remit the case to the High Court which should then decide Special Civil Application Nos. 1746 of 1999 and 1754 of 1999 in accordance with law. The interim order which was passed by this Court will continue till varied and the matter is disposed of by the High Court.
Appeals allowed.
**************
