ALS

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 Addresses Import Policy Restrictions on Sandalwood

    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    The petitioner argued that the import restrictions on sandalwood are outdated and have outlived their intended purpose.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

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

    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

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

    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

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

    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

  • 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