Writ Against CEGAT Order Not Maintainable When Alternate Remedy Exists | SC
- Blog|News|GST & Customs|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 15 December, 2025
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Rikhab Chand Jain vs. Union of India - [2025] 180 taxmann.com 773 (SC)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dipankar Datta & Aravind Kumar, JJ.
-
Ms Chitrangda Rastravara, AOR, Anirudh Singh, Abhijeet Singh, Aishwary Mishra, Dhananjai Shekhawat, Ms Sakshi Aggarwal, Ms Pearl Pundir, Dashrath Singh, Advs. & Yuvraj Singh, Adv, for the Appellant.
-
Raghvendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Amit Sharma II, Raman Yadav, Advs. & Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, challenged an order of confiscation and penalty passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) in respect of alleged smuggled silver. The CEGAT confirmed the confiscation but reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 30,000. The appellant approached the High Court under writ jurisdiction, contending illegality of the CEGAT order. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the appellant had failed to pursue the alternate appellate remedy available. The matter was accordingly placed before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Supreme Court held that where an equally efficacious remedy exists, invocation of writ jurisdiction is not maintainable. The Court observed that the appellant had a remedy by way of a reference before the High Court against the CEGAT order, which was sufficient and legally adequate. The appellant’s attempt to invoke writ jurisdiction constituted a misadventure and did not justify interference. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order, confirming that the writ petition was rightly dismissed.
List of Cases Referred to
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Md. Nooh AIR 1958 SC 86 (para 7)
- Titaghur Paper Mills v. State of Orissa (1983) 2 SCC 433 (para 7)
- Godrej Sara Lee v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority 2023 SCC OnLine SC 95 (para 7)
- Thansingh Nathmal v. A. Mazid, Superintendent of Taxes AIR 1964 SC 1419 (para 10)
- A. V. Venkateswaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani 1961 taxmann.com 4 (SC) (para 12).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
CA | CS | CMA
