ALO Partners Logo

π€πšππ«π’π€πšπš π‹πžπ πšπ₯ π’πžπ«π―π’πœπžπ¬ (𝐀𝐋𝐒)

Tag: #Delhi High Court

  • Delhi High Court Upholds Principles of Natural Justice in Customs Dispute

    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

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

    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.  β€‹

    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

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

    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

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

    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 DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 27.08.2025

    Delhi High Court Sets Aside the CESTAT Order of delay in filling the Customs appeal​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​

    The High Court of Delhi, in a significant judgment delivered on January 23, 2024, addressed a long-pending customs appeal involving the Commissioner of Customs ACC Import New Delhi and M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd. ​ The case revolved around the condonation of an extraordinary delay in filing the appeal and the subsequent remittance of the matter to the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) for adjudication on merits. ​

    Background of the Case

    The appeal was filed under Section 130(2A) of the Customs Act, 1962, seeking condonation of a delay of 2267 days in filing the appeal. ​ The delay was attributed to the pendency of similar issues in other cases and the legal uncertainty surrounding the jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority. The respondent, M/s Kajaria Ceramics Ltd, represented by Advocate, did not object to the condonation of the delay, citing the precedent set in a batch of appeals decided earlier. ​ The appellant, represented by Senior Standing Counsel, relied on the judgment passed in Pr. ​ Commissioner of Customs vs. Kunal Lalani (CUSAA 20/2021), where similar matters were remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Orders Release of Confiscated Gold Chain

    Delhi High Court Orders Release of Confiscated Gold Chain

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 18.08.2025

    Delhi High Court Orders Release of Confiscated Gold Chain ​ ​ ​ ​

    In a significant ruling on August 7, 2025, the High Court of Delhi addressed the contentious issue of gold jewelry confiscation by customs authorities, setting a precedent for the treatment of personal effects under Indian law. ​ The case involved Appellant, a senior citizen and foreign national from Turkmenistan, who had traveled to India for medical treatment. Upon her arrival at Indira Gandhi International Airport on July 16, 2024, customs officials detained her gold chain (weighing 132 grams) and gold bracelet (weighing 66 grams), citing violations of customs regulations. ​

    Background of the Case

    Appellant filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the release of her confiscated gold items. ​ While the Customs Department allowed her to redeem the gold bracelet upon payment of a fine and penalty, the gold chain was subjected to absolute confiscation. ​ This distinction between the two items raised questions about the legality and rationale behind the customs authorities’ actions.

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 30.06.2025

    Delhi High Court Upholds SAD Refund & Latest Customs Notification

    The Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Customs (ICD Import) vs. Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd., has upheld the right of the importer to claim refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the one-year limitation condition prescribed in Notification No. 102/2007-Customs, as amended.

    The Court dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the CESTAT’s decision, marking a key precedent for SAD refund claims and interpretation of refund limitations under customs notifications.

    Case Background

    • Suzuki Motorcycle India Pvt. Ltd. had imported goods on payment of Special Additional Duty (SAD) and later sold them in the domestic market, paying VAT/CST, as required under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus.
    • The company sought refund of SAD under the said notification but filed claims beyond the one-year period stipulated by the 2008 amendment to the notification (Notification No. 93/2008-Cus).
    • The Department rejected the refund, citing delay, leading to the matter being contested before CESTAT, which allowed the refund.
    • The Department filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court, relying on the Bombay High Court’s ruling in CMS Info Systems Ltd. v. UOI [2017 (349) ELT 236 (Bom)], which had upheld the one-year limitation.

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi High Court- Customs Detention in NDPS Case Declared Illegal

    Delhi High Court- Customs Detention in NDPS Case Declared Illegal

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.06.2025

    Delhi High Court- Customs Detention in NDPS Case Declared Illegal

    The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Appellant, an Ethiopian national, in a case involving alleged drug trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court held that the petitioner’s prolonged detention by Customs officials without producing him before a magistrate constituted a violation of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

    Background

    Appellant was intercepted by Customs officials at IGI Airport, Delhi on 21 May 2023 after he was suspected of concealing drugs internally. He voluntarily admitted to ingesting 75 capsules containing methaqualone and cocaine, which were medically removed at Safdarjung Hospital. Despite this, he was only formally arrested by the Customs Department on 26 May 2023.

    The NDPS recovery was significant:

    • Cocaine Hydrochloride: 424 grams
    • Methaqualone: 536 grams
    • Total: 960 grams, qualifying as a commercial quantity.

    Appellant filed a bail application under Section 439 of the CrPC, read with Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com

  • Delhi HC Orders Release of Detained Gold as Personal Effects Under Baggage Rules

    Delhi HC Orders Release of Detained Gold as Personal Effects Under Baggage Rules

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 25.06.2025

    Delhi HC Orders Release of Detained Gold as Personal Effects Under Baggage Rules

    Case Background

    In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has quashed the detention of personal gold jewellery belonging to an Indian resident travelling from Dubai. The petitioner was intercepted by Customs officers at IGI Airport, New Delhi on 26th December 2023, while wearing:

    • 80 grams gold chain
    • 150 grams gold kada

    These items were detained, and an Order-in-Original was passed without issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, later partially upheld by the Appellate Authority with conditions of customs duty, redemption fine, and penalty.

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

    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

  • Delhi High Court Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    Delhi High Court Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    ALO Law Office- IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation

    Date: 26.05.2025

    Delhi High Court Quashes DRI Summons and Complaint in Foreign Currency Case

    The Delhi High Court in CRL.M.C. 7919/2023 & CRL.M.A. 29532/2023 quashed the criminal complaint and the summoning order issued against Mr. Pawan Kant Munjal, Executive Chairman of Hero MotoCorp, by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The court held that the proceedings were based on a set of facts already conclusively adjudicated in favour of the petitioner, and continuing with the prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law.

    Background of the Case

    • Petitioner: Pawan Kant Munjal, Executive Chairman, Hero MotoCorp
    • Complaint Filed By: Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI)
    • Subject: Alleged violation involving undeclared foreign currency seized from an aide during an international business trip in 2018
    • Key Event: Mr. Amit Bali, assistant of SEMPL (event coordinator), was found carrying undeclared currency amounting to approx. β‚Ή81 lakh
    • DRI Allegation: The currency belonged to Mr. Munjal and was exported illegally in contravention of the Customs Act and FEMA

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

    Source: Delhi High Court

    Disclaimer

    Handy Download:

    ALO DocumentDownload

    Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

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

    www.aadrikaalaw.com