Calcutta High Court: Writ Petition Maintainable Where Customs Authority Allegedly Stepped Beyond Objective Law Into Subjective Morality — Pracha Aalloy Private Limited Vs Union of India and Ors.

Background and Context

The Calcutta High Court, at a preliminary hearing stage, addressed a significant jurisdictional question arising from a writ petition filed by Pracha Aalloy Private Limited challenging a Customs adjudication order. The core issue before the Court was whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was maintainable, given that an efficacious statutory appellate remedy existed under the Customs Act, 1962.

The petitioner had approached the High Court assailing an order dated 22.07.2026 passed by the respondent authority. Before the Court could examine the substantive merits, a preliminary objection was raised by the Revenue regarding the maintainability of the petition itself — a question the Court chose to resolve at the outset.

The Revenue's Preliminary Objection

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue pressed a strong preliminary objection, arguing that the Customs Act, 1962 constitutes a comprehensive self-contained legislative code, replete with an internal appellate mechanism. Specifically, Revenue pointed out that:

  • The impugned order was amenable to an appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
  • Such an appeal would require the statutory pre-deposit as mandated under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962.
  • The petitioner had deliberately bypassed this statutory channel and directly invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, which Revenue contended was unsustainable in law.

In support of this position, Revenue placed reliance upon two Supreme Court decisions:

  1. Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh — 2021 (48) GSTL 113 (SC)
  2. Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. Mangalore Stock Exchange — (2005) 10 SCC 274

Key Principles from Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh

Revenue specifically drew the Court's attention to paragraph 27 of the Supreme Court's ruling in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh — 2021 (48) GSTL 113 (SC), which the Court reproduced verbatim in its order:

"27. The principles of law which emerge are that: (1) The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well; (ii) The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person; (iii) Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged; (iv) An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law; (v) When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion; and (vi) In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with."