𝐀𝐚𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐤𝐚𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Category: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 30.12.2025

Delhi High Court Addresses Aircraft Usage and Customs Duty Exemption Dispute

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On March 1, 2023, the High Court of Delhi delivered a significant judgment in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi v. M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd. This case revolved around the interpretation of Condition No. 104 of Customs Notification No. 21/2002-Cus, as amended by Notification No. 61/2007-Cus, and the compliance requirements for availing duty exemption on imported aircraft used for non-scheduled (passenger) services.

Background of the Case

The dispute originated from an order-in-original dated August 31, 2010, issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The order raised a demand of ₹41.37 crore in customs duty and imposed a penalty of ₹10 crore on M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the Commissioner directed the confiscation of the imported aircraft, with an option to redeem it by paying a redemption fine of ₹30 crore under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

The crux of the case was the alleged non-compliance by the respondent with Condition No. 104 of the Customs Notification. This condition required the aircraft to be used exclusively for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services. The Customs Authority alleged that the aircraft was used for private purposes, thereby violating the undertaking furnished by the respondent.

Tribunal’s Decision

The Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd on September 8, 2022. The Tribunal found that the aircraft was used in accordance with the permit granted by the Director General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) and was operated for remuneration. It held that the undertaking to use the aircraft for non-scheduled (passenger) services could only be considered violated if the DGCA determined that the aircraft’s use was not in compliance with the permit issued for such services. Since the DGCA had not found any violation and had renewed the permit annually, the Tribunal concluded that the Customs Authority could not demand duty based on the undertaking.

High Court’s Judgment 

The Revenue challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the High Court of Delhi, raising several questions for consideration:
1. Whether the Customs Authority has the jurisdiction to examine compliance with the conditions of the exemption notification.
2. Whether the respondent company had complied with the conditions for availing duty exemption under the notification.
3. Whether a non-scheduled (passenger) operator can carry out charter services.
4. Whether the respondent company was obligated to issue tickets to passengers.
The High Court addressed these questions in detail:

1. Jurisdiction of Customs Authority

The court held that the Customs Authority does have the jurisdiction to examine whether the conditions of the exemption notification were fulfilled. This decision was consistent with the court’s earlier ruling in East India Hotels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Central GST, New Delhi (CUSAA 5/2020).

2. Compliance with Condition No. 104

The court found that the respondent had complied with Condition No. 104 of the notification. It noted that the aircraft was used for providing non-scheduled (passenger) services for remuneration, as required by the condition. The court emphasized that the DGCA had not found any violation of the permit for non-scheduled (passenger) services and had renewed the permit annually. Therefore, the respondent was deemed to have fulfilled the conditions of the exemption notification.

3. Charter Services by Non-Scheduled Operators 

The court upheld the Tribunal’s finding that non-scheduled (passenger) operators are permitted to carry out charter services, provided they comply with the DGCA’s permit conditions.

4. Obligation to Issue Tickets 

The court clarified that the respondent was not obligated to issue tickets to passengers to comply with the definition of non-scheduled (passenger) services. The absence of a published tariff did not imply that the aircraft was used for private purposes.

Final Verdict

The High Court ruled in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs. The court concluded that the respondent had complied with the conditions of the exemption notification and was entitled to duty exemption. The penalty and redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner were also overturned.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark decision in the realm of customs law, particularly concerning the interpretation of exemption notifications and the role of regulatory authorities like the DGCA. It underscores the importance of adhering to the conditions of permits issued by regulatory bodies and clarifies the scope of non-scheduled (passenger) services.

The case also highlights the need for clear guidelines and coordination between different regulatory authorities, such as the Customs Authority and the DGCA, to avoid conflicting interpretations of compliance requirements.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in favor of M/S Reliance Commercial Dealers Ltd is a significant victory for the respondent and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future. It reinforces the principle that compliance with DGCA permits is a key factor in determining adherence to exemption notifications under customs law. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of regulatory clarity and the need for authorities to work in tandem to ensure fair and consistent enforcement of the law.

Connected Matter

CESTAT Ahmedabad Ruled on Customs Duty Exemptions for Aircraft Importers

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 30, 2025
Delhi High Court Addresses Import Policy Restrictions on Sandalwood

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 27.12.2025

Delhi High Court Addresses Import Policy Restrictions on Sandalwood

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On September 25, 2025, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Justice, delivered a significant order in the case of W.P. (C) 14781/2025, filed by Appellant, a small-scale trader engaged in the import and processing of sandalwood. The case revolved around the petitioner’s challenge to the prevailing import policy on sandalwood, which imposes a quantitative ceiling of 5,000 cubic meters (cum) as prescribed under the policy and circulars dated April 7, 2006, and December 31, 2007.

Background of the Case

The petitioner argued that the import restrictions on sandalwood are outdated and have outlived their intended purpose. These restrictions, according to the petitioner, violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, which ensures the freedom to practice any profession or carry out any occupation, trade, or business.

The petitioner highlighted the adverse impact of the ceiling limit on the unorganized sector, particularly small-scale artisans who rely on sandalwood for manufacturing handicrafts and perfumery products. The scarcity of sandalwood due to these restrictions has created challenges for domestic production, which is insufficient to meet the growing demand.

Additionally, the petitioner contended that the quantitative ceiling contradicts the second proviso to Section 9A(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, further emphasizing the need for policy revision.

Court’s Observations and Directions

After hearing the arguments, the Delhi High Court took a balanced approach to address the concerns raised by the petitioner. The court directed that the petition be treated as a representation by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), which is respondent no. 2 in the case. The DGFT was instructed to consider the petitioner’s grievances and pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law.

The court also emphasized the importance of consulting relevant stakeholders, including the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change, and other concerned parties, before making a decision. This ensures that the issue is addressed comprehensively, taking into account environmental, economic, and social factors.

The court mandated that the representation be disposed of through a speaking order within 12 weeks from the date of the order, ensuring a timely resolution of the matter.

Implications of the Order

This order is a significant step towards addressing the challenges faced by small-scale traders and artisans who depend on sandalwood for their livelihood. By directing the DGFT to review the import policy, the court has paved the way for a potential revision of the quantitative ceiling, which could alleviate the scarcity of sandalwood and support the unorganized sector.

The decision also highlights the judiciary’s role in balancing economic interests with environmental concerns. By involving the Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change in the decision-making process, the court has ensured that any policy changes will be made with due consideration to sustainability and ecological preservation.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s order in this case underscores the importance of revisiting outdated policies that hinder economic growth and impact livelihoods. It also sets a precedent for addressing similar issues in other sectors where restrictive policies may be causing unintended consequences. As the DGFT reviews the representation and consults relevant stakeholders, it is hoped that the outcome will be a more balanced and progressive import policy that supports small-scale traders and artisans while ensuring the sustainable use of natural resources.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com

December 27, 2025
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Customs Duty Exemption for ELISA Kits
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 26.12.2025

Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief in Customs Duty Exemption for ELISA Kits

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

The Delhi High Court has recently issued an interim relief in a case that could have significant implications for businesses dealing with specialized testing kits. The case, Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, revolves around the denial of customs duty exemption for ELISA kits used for food and animal testing. This exemption is claimed under a notification that the appellant argues should apply to these kits.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd., filed the appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the order passed by the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) on 8th July 2025. The Tribunal had upheld the Adjudicating Authority’s earlier decision dated 25th May 2022, which refused the exemption benefit for ELISA kits. The appellant contends that these kits are exempted from customs duty under the relevant exemption notification, which is critical for their operations in food and animal testing.

The case raises broader questions about the interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability to specialized products like ELISA kits. The appellant has also indicated that additional grounds will be raised during the final hearing, which could further clarify the legal position on this matter.

Proceedings in the Delhi High Court 

The matter was heard on 22nd December 2025 by a bench comprising Justice. The hearing was conducted in hybrid mode, reflecting the Court’s adoption of modern practices to ensure accessibility and efficiency.

During the proceedings, the Court noted that similar cases are already pending before it, including:
1. Ashish Bhandari vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs (CUSAA 36/2025)
2. Ilishan Biotech (P.) Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi Appeal (CUSAA 37/2025)
Given the overlap in issues, the Court decided to list the present case alongside these matters for a consolidated hearing on 14th January 2026. This approach ensures consistency in judicial decisions and allows for a comprehensive examination of the legal questions involved.

Interim Relief Granted

In a significant interim order, the Court directed that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant until the matter is resolved. This relief provides temporary protection to the appellant, allowing them to continue their operations without the immediate threat of enforcement actions.

Additionally, the Court issued directions for the filing of pleadings. The respondent has been asked to submit a counter affidavit within two weeks, and the appellant is required to file a rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. These submissions will play a crucial role in shaping the arguments for the final hearing.

Implications of the Case

This case is not just about one company’s claim for customs duty exemption; it has broader implications for industries that rely on specialized testing kits like ELISA kits. These kits are essential for ensuring food safety and conducting animal testing, both of which are critical for public health and regulatory compliance.

The outcome of this case could set a precedent for how exemption notifications are interpreted and applied to similar products. If the appellant succeeds, it could pave the way for other companies to claim similar exemptions, potentially reducing costs and encouraging innovation in the field of veterinary and food testing.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to grant interim relief in this case is a positive development for Adinath Veterinary Products Pvt. Ltd. and other stakeholders in the industry. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the Court addresses the legal and regulatory issues surrounding customs duty exemptions for specialized products.

The next hearing is scheduled for 14th January 2026, and all eyes will be on the Court as it deliberates on this important matter.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 26, 2025
Delhi High Court Directs Customs Department to Ensure Transparency in Order Issuance

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 20.12.2025

Delhi High Court Directs Customs Department to Ensure Transparency in Order Issuance

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court has issued directives to the Customs Department to ensure transparency and accountability in the issuance of official orders and communications. The judgment, delivered on December 11, 2025, by Justice, addresses procedural lapses in the Customs Department and emphasizes the importance of proper documentation and accountability in administrative processes.

Background of the Case

The case revolves around a petition filed by M/s Guru Kirpa Enterprises under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging an order dated July 26, 2025, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export), ICD, Tughlakabad. The petitioner sought amendments to shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, to rectify an inadvertent error in declaring CESS amounts. The petitioner argued that the omission had led to the inability to claim refunds for the CESS paid on consignments of energy drinks purchased in 2024.

This was the second round of litigation for the petitioner, as the first petition had resulted in a court directive for the Customs Department to consider the petitioner’s representation and supporting documents. However, the Customs Department rejected the request, citing the absence of evidence on the e-sanchit platform to support the amendment request.

Key Observations by the Court

During the hearing, it was revealed that the impugned order was signed by a Superintendent instead of the official who had passed the order, Assistant Commissioner . The Court expressed concern over this procedural lapse, stating that orders must be signed by the officials who pass them, with their name and designation clearly mentioned. The lack of such information undermines accountability and raises doubts about the authenticity of the orders.

The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Qamar Jahan v. Union of India, where it had approved a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the Customs Department in baggage cases. The SOP mandates that the name and designation of the officer passing the order must be clearly mentioned, along with physical or digital signatures. The Court emphasized that this practice should extend to all orders and communications issued by the Customs Department, not just those related to baggage cases.

Court’s Directions

The Delhi High Court directed the Customs Department to ensure that all future orders and communications include the name and designation of the official passing the order. It also recommended the use of physical or digital signatures to enhance the authenticity of the documents. The Court clarified that while administrative convenience may allow other officials to communicate the orders, the name and designation of the actual decision-maker must not be misrepresented.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a step forward in ensuring transparency and accountability in government processes. By mandating clear identification of officials responsible for decisions, the Court has reinforced the importance of procedural integrity in administrative actions. The ruling is expected to streamline operations within the Customs Department and prevent procedural ambiguities that could lead to disputes or delays.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding transparency and accountability in administrative processes. It serves as a reminder to government departments to adhere to established procedures and maintain the highest standards of governance. As the case progresses, it will be interesting to see how the Customs Department implements these directives and addresses the petitioner’s concerns regarding the amendment of shipping bills.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com

December 20, 2025
Delhi High Court Partially Allows Chillies Exporters Association’s Petition Against TMA Scheme Foreclosure

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 13.12.2025

Delhi High Court Partially Allows Chillies Exporters Association’s Petition Against TMA Scheme Foreclosure

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant judgment delivered on December 10, 2025, the Delhi High Court partially ruled in favor of the Chillies Exporters Association India in their petition challenging the foreclosure of the “Revised Transport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) for Specified Agricultural Products” scheme. The case, W.P. (C) 9463/2024, revolved around the retrospective withdrawal of export incentives under the TMA Scheme by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT).

Background of the Case 

The TMA Scheme was introduced by the Government of India in February 2019 to provide assistance for the international transportation and marketing of specified agricultural products. The scheme aimed to mitigate the higher costs of transportation and promote brand recognition for Indian agricultural products in overseas markets. Initially, the scheme was applicable for exports from March 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, and was later extended until March 31, 2021.

In September 2021, the government issued a revised TMA Scheme notification, making it applicable retrospectively for exports from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. However, this notification was withdrawn on March 25, 2022, effectively foreclosing the scheme. The Chillies Exporters Association India challenged the retrospective withdrawal, arguing that it unfairly denied exporters the incentives they were entitled to under the scheme.

Key Arguments

The petitioners contended that the notification dated March 25, 2022, was ultra vires as it retrospectively rescinded the benefits of the TMA Scheme, which had been operational from April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022. They argued that the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (FTDR Act), under which the scheme was introduced, does not empower the government to issue notifications with retrospective effect. The petitioners also invoked the principle of legitimate expectation, stating that exporters had relied on the scheme to make business decisions and that the retrospective withdrawal of benefits was arbitrary and unfair.

The respondents, represented by the DGFT, argued that the notification was issued to revamp and redesign the scheme for better outcomes. They emphasized that the government has the authority to amend or rescind policies in the public interest, especially in complex economic matters, and that such decisions should not be subject to judicial review unless malice or arbitrariness is established.

The Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court ruled that the government does not have the authority under Sections 3 and 5 of the FTDR Act to issue notifications with retrospective effect. The court held that the notification dated September 9, 2021, which introduced the revised TMA Scheme, could only operate prospectively. Therefore, the court concluded that chilli exporters who made exports between September 9, 2021, and March 24, 2022, are eligible to claim incentives under the scheme, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.

However, the court also ruled that no rights had accrued to chilli exporters for exports made between April 1, 2021, and September 8, 2021, as the scheme was not in operation during that period. The retrospective application of the September 9, 2021, notification was deemed impermissible under the FTDR Act.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment is a landmark decision in the realm of foreign trade policy and government schemes. It reinforces the principle that delegated or subordinate legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly authorized by the governing statute. The ruling also highlights the importance of the principle of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that public authorities must act in a consistent, transparent, and predictable manner.

For chilli exporters, the judgment provides partial relief, allowing them to claim incentives for exports made between September 9, 2021, and March 24, 2022. However, it also underscores the limitations of retrospective policy changes, which can disrupt business planning and create uncertainty for exporters.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in W.P. (C) 9463/2024 serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries within which government policies must operate. While the government has the right to amend or rescind policies in the public interest, such actions must comply with statutory provisions and cannot infringe upon the legitimate expectations of stakeholders. This case is a significant development for exporters and policymakers alike, setting a precedent for the treatment of retrospective policy changes in India’s foreign trade framework.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com

December 13, 2025
Delhi High Court Upholds Principles of Natural Justice in Customs Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 04.12.2025

Delhi High Court Upholds Principles of Natural Justice in Customs Dispute

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant development, the Delhi High Court, on November 24, 2025, delivered a judgment in the case of Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), addressing critical issues of procedural fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice. The case revolved around a customs dispute where the petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), New Delhi.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order-in-Original dated July 26, 2024, and a subsequent corrigendum issued on October 9, 2024. The petitioner alleged that notices for personal hearings, issued in early 2024, were never received, and the impugned order was passed without granting them an opportunity to be heard.

The petitioner further contended that even the impugned order was not served properly, and they only became aware of it upon approaching the Department. The case raised concerns about procedural lapses, including the lack of delivery receipts and tracking reports for notices sent via speed post.

Key Observations by the Court

The High Court, presided over by Justice , noted several procedural irregularities in the case. The court observed that:
1. Failure to Prove Service of Notices: The Department was unable to provide delivery reports for the notices and the impugned order, despite filing tracking receipts for speed post dispatches.
2. Violation of Natural Justice: The impugned order was passed ex parte, depriving the petitioner of an opportunity to present their case.
3. Deposit Already Made: The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 39,00,000 during the investigation, which exceeded the usual pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal.
Court’s Decision

In the interest of justice, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The court directed the Department to furnish all relevant documents (RUDs) to the petitioner by December 20, 2025, and allowed the petitioner to file a reply by January 20, 2026. A personal hearing was also mandated, with notices to be served via email and mobile communication.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining proper tracking receipts and delivery reports for future notices to ensure procedural transparency.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring fair treatment in adjudication processes. By remanding the case for fresh adjudication, the court has provided the petitioner with an opportunity to present their case and address the allegations raised in the Show Cause Notice.

Additionally, the judgment serves as a reminder to government departments to adhere to procedural requirements and maintain proper records to avoid disputes over service of notices.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings. By setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication, the court has reinforced the need for transparency and accountability in administrative actions. This case serves as a precedent for ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to be heard, especially in matters involving significant financial implications.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 4, 2025
Delhi High Court Rejects Novo Nordisk’s Interim Injunction in Semaglutide Patent Dispute Against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 04.12.2025

Delhi High Court Rejects Novo Nordisk’s Interim Injunction in Semaglutide Patent Dispute Against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.comor on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

On December 2, 2025, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgment in the case of Novo Nordisk AS vs. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Limited & Anr.  (CS(COMM) 565/2025), addressing a patent infringement dispute over the pharmaceutical compound Semaglutide. The case revolved around Novo Nordisk’s claim that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories infringed its patent (Patent No. IN’697) for the drug Semaglutide, marketed under the brand names Ozempic, Wegovy, and Rybelsus.

Background of the Case

Novo Nordisk, a global healthcare company specializing in diabetes treatment, filed the suit alleging that Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and OneSource Specialty Pharma Limited were manufacturing and exporting Semaglutide-based drugs without authorization. Novo Nordisk sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and exporting the drug, claiming infringement of its patent.

The defendants argued that the Semaglutide compound was already disclosed in a prior patent, IN’964 (Genus Patent), filed by Novo Nordisk in 2004. They contended that the Semaglutide compound was not novel and lacked an inventive step, making the Suit Patent/IN’697 vulnerable to revocation under Section 64 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

Key Issues Addressed

The court focused on the following key issues:
1. Anticipation by Prior Claiming (Section 64(1)(a)): The defendants argued that the Semaglutide compound was already claimed in the Genus Patent/IN’964. The court found that the Genus Patent/IN’964 contained specific claims and disclosures that enabled a “person skilled in the art” to arrive at the Semaglutide compound, making the Suit Patent/IN’697 vulnerable to revocation under Section 64(1)(a).
2. Anticipation by Prior Publication (Section 64(1)(e)): The court held that the Genus Patent/IN’964, published before the priority date of the Suit Patent/IN’697, disclosed the Semaglutide compound, making the latter patent vulnerable under Section 64(1)(e).
3. Obviousness (Section 64(1)(f)): The court determined that the Semaglutide compound was an obvious modification of Example 61 in the Genus Patent/IN’964, given the teachings in the prior arts, including Deacon [1998] and Knudsen [2004]. The court applied the “person in the know” test, considering the common inventors between the Genus Patent/IN’964 and the Suit Patent/IN’697, and concluded that the modifications were within the skillset of the inventors.
4. Evergreening: The court noted that Novo Nordisk had invented the Semaglutide compound in 2004, contemporaneous with the filing of the Genus Patent/IN’964. The court found that the filing of the Suit Patent/IN’697 was an attempt to extend the monopoly on the Semaglutide compound, resulting in double patenting and evergreening.
Court’s Decision

The court denied Novo Nordisk’s request for an interim injunction, allowing Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories to continue manufacturing the drug in India and exporting it to countries where Novo Nordisk does not hold a patent. However, the court directed the defendants to maintain detailed records of their manufacturing and export activities and prohibited them from selling the drug in India until the expiry of the Suit Patent/IN’697 on March 20, 2026.

Key Takeaways
1. No Presumption of Patent Validity: The court reiterated that under Indian patent law, there is no presumption of validity for granted patents, and defendants can challenge the validity of a patent even at the interim stage.
2. Evergreening and Double Patenting: The court emphasized that patent law does not permit inventors to extend their monopoly through successive patents for the same invention, as this would be against public interest.
3. Importance of Clearing the Way: The court criticized the defendants for failing to challenge the Suit Patent/IN’697 before commencing manufacturing, highlighting the importance of clearing the way in patent disputes.
Implications

This judgment is a landmark decision in the realm of patent law, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector. It underscores the importance of assessing patent validity under Indian law and highlights the judiciary’s stance against evergreening practices that could harm public interest. The case also serves as a reminder for companies to clear the way before engaging in activities that may infringe on existing patents.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 4, 2025
High Court of Delhi Quashes Proceedings Under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 03.12.2025

High Court of Delhi Quashes Proceedings Under Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a landmark judgment delivered on November 20, 2025, the High Court of Delhi addressed the constitutional validity and implications of Rule 96(10) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. The judgment, authored by Justice, has significant ramifications for exporters seeking refunds under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) framework. The Court quashed proceedings initiated under Rule 96(10) in three separate writ petitions, marking a pivotal moment in GST jurisprudence.

Background

Rule 96(10) of the CGST Rules imposed restrictions on exporters claiming IGST refunds, creating complications for businesses availing exemptions under specific notifications. The rule was challenged by various petitioners, including M/s Vinayak International Housewares Pvt Ltd, M/s Ashish Foils Pvt Ltd, and M/s Mayedass International, who argued that the rule was unconstitutional and contrary to Section 16 of the IGST Act, 2017.

The GST Council, in its 54th meeting, recommended the omission of Rule 96(10), citing its unnecessary complexity and lack of intended benefits. Subsequently, Notification No. 20/2024 was issued on October 8, 2024, officially omitting the rule. However, the omission was deemed prospective, leading to disputes over its applicability to pending proceedings.

Key Observations by the Court
1. Constitutional Validity of Rule 96(10): The Court referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Sance Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, which declared Rule 96(10) unconstitutional for imposing restrictions not contemplated under Section 16 of the IGST Act. The Delhi High Court concurred, emphasizing that the rule created arbitrary constraints on IGST refunds.
2. Impact of Omission: The Court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd., to conclude that the omission of Rule 96(10) applies to all pending proceedings. It held that unless transactions are “past and closed,” the benefit of the rule’s omission must extend to ongoing cases.
3. Quashing of Proceedings:
  - In W.P.(C) 3154/2023, the Court quashed summons issued to M/s Vinayak International Housewares Pvt Ltd, ruling that no proceedings could continue under the omitted rule.
  - In W.P.(C) 10687/2023, the Court quashed show cause notices (SCNs) and subsequent orders against M/s Ashish Foils Pvt Ltd.
  - In W.P.(C) 3165/2023, the Court quashed SCNs and proceedings against M/s Mayedass International.
Implications for Exporters

This judgment is a significant relief for exporters who faced hurdles in claiming IGST refunds due to Rule 96(10). The Court’s decision ensures that the omission of the rule applies retrospectively to all pending proceedings, including SCNs, orders, and appeals. Exporters can now claim refunds without the constraints imposed by the rule, simplifying the refund process and aligning it with the intent of the GST framework.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of judicial scrutiny in ensuring that tax regulations do not impose arbitrary restrictions on businesses. By quashing proceedings under Rule 96(10), the Court has upheld the principles of fairness and simplicity in the GST regime. This decision is a welcome development for exporters and sets a precedent for similar cases across the country.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 3, 2025
Delhi High Court Examines Classification and Jurisdiction Issues in Export Tax Dispute
ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 01.12.2025

Delhi High Court Examines Classification and Jurisdiction Issues in Export Tax Dispute

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant legal development, the Delhi High Court recently heard the case of M/s Talbros Sealing Material Pvt. Ltd. vs. Additional Commissioner of Customs Export & Anr.  on November 21, 2025. The case revolves around two critical issues: the classification of exported goods and the authority of the Customs Department to issue a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (IGST Act).

Background of the Case

M/s Talbros Sealing Material Pvt. Ltd., a company engaged in the export of sealing materials such as rubberized cork gaskets and rubber gaskets, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition challenges an Order-in-Original dated June 25, 2025, issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Export). The impugned order raised demands and directed recoveries against the Petitioner, including rejection of IGST refunds, drawback amounts, and other export benefits.

The dispute arose from the classification of the exported goods. The Customs Department alleged that the Petitioner had incorrectly classified the products under HSN 40169340 instead of HSN 45041010, leading to inadmissible export benefits. The department imposed penalties and ordered the recovery of excess incentives along with applicable interest.

Key Issues Raised 
1. Classification of Goods: The Petitioner challenged the classification of its products, arguing that the Customs Department’s decision was incorrect. The court allowed the Petitioner to file an appeal within 30 days regarding this issue, ensuring that the appeal would not be dismissed on the grounds of limitation.
2. Authority to Issue SCN: The Petitioner contended that the Customs Department lacked the authority to issue the SCN under the IGST Act. It argued that only a proper officer notified under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) could raise demands or recover taxes. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that Customs Officers are proper officers under Section 2(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, and can raise tax demands related to exports.
Court’s Observations and Directions

The court acknowledged the complexity of the interplay between the Customs Act, IGST Act, and CGST Act. It directed the Customs Department and CGST Department to file a joint affidavit clarifying who qualifies as the ‘proper officer’ in such cases. The court also emphasized that the classification issue should be addressed through appellate remedies.

Next Steps

The court has set the following timeline for the case:
- Counter Affidavit: To be filed within four weeks.
- Rejoinder: To be filed within four weeks thereafter.
- Next Hearing: Scheduled for February 24, 2026.
Implications of the Case

This case highlights the challenges exporters face in navigating complex tax and customs regulations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for businesses dealing with similar classification and jurisdictional issues. It also underscores the importance of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of different departments under the GST regime.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

“Handy Order for Download”Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com
December 1, 2025
Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

Date: 23.09.2025

Delhi High Court Orders Provisional Release of Seized Goods in Customs Dispute

This Article has been written by Shri Ravi Shekhar Jha, Advocate based in New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com or on his Mobile +91-9999005379.

In a significant judgment delivered on August 13, 2025, the Delhi High Court addressed the contentious issue of seizure and provisional release of imported goods under the Customs Act, 1962. The case involved M/s Nageswara Trade, which had filed two writ petitions challenging the seizure of its imported multi-functional devices and photocopier machines.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the Customs Department seized goods imported by M/s Nageswara Trade under Bill of Entry No. 5518018 dated September 10, 2024. The seizure memo, issued on January 2, 2025, cited non-compliance with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration and restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The petitioner argued that the seizure was arbitrary, as the memo did not specify the violation, and sought provisional release of the goods.

Source: Delhi High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

ALO Document Download

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379

www.aadrikaalaw.com

September 23, 2025