Suashish Diamond Ltd. v. The Union of India and Others

Bombay HC17 Feb 2025WP/4913/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suashish Diamond Ltd v UOI & Ors, WP 4913/2024 (Bom HC OOCJ), decided 28 Jul 2025, Sonak & Jain JJ (per Sonak J): customs refund of ~Rs.11.92 crores paid without interest despite delay and ~Rs.50 lakhs balance outstanding; petition disposed by directing respondents to dispose of balance-refund and interest applications within 3 months with reasoned order, petitioner to resolve error codes in 4 weeks, all contentions left open, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued: respondents to dispose of the applications for the balance refund of Rs.50 lakhs and interest on the refunded Rs.11.92 crores within three months, hearing the petitioner and issuing a reasoned order; petitioner to sort out the error-code issue within four weeks without prejudice; all contentions left open; no costs awarded. ¶¶22

Suashish Diamond Ltd. vs The Union of India and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the refunded amount of Rs.11.92 crores, the refund having been made without interest despite delay. +2 more

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

At this stage the Court declined to enter into the issue of error codes; it directed that it is for the petitioner to sort out this issue if any within four weeks, without prejudice to the petitioner's contention that error codes were never pointed out earlier.

¶¶16

Key takeaways

Respondents are directed to dispose of the petitioner's application for the balance refund of Rs.50 lakhs and for interest on the refunded amount of Rs.11.92 crores within three months, irrespective of whether the petitioner clears the issue of error codes or not.ratio¶¶17
All contentions of all parties are left open, as the Court has not examined the rival contentions.obiter¶¶18
The petitioner must be heard and a reasoned order must be made and communicated within the three-month period; the petitioner must cooperate with the respondents for expeditious disposal of the application for refund and interest.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.4913 of 2024 - M/s. Suashish Diamond Limited v. The Union of India and Ors.; Coram M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. (per M.S. Sonak, J.); decided 28 July 2025. The petitioner, having received refund of approximately Rs.11.92 crores from the customs respondents without interest despite delay, and with approximately Rs.50 Lakhs of refund still outstanding, instituted the writ seeking interest and the balance refund. The Court disposed of the petition by directions alone: respondents to dispose of the applications for the balance refund and for interest within three months, after hearing the petitioner and communicating a reasoned order; the petitioner to sort out the alleged error codes within four weeks without prejudice to its contention that error codes were never pointed out earlier; and all rival contentions expressly left open as unexamined. No costs were awarded.

¶1

13-WP-4913-2024.DOCX

¶2

rsk

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4913 OF 2024

¶5

M/s. Suashish Diamond Limited …Petitioner Versus The Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Parth Badheka a/w. Ms. Lata Nagal , for Petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Chandrashekar a/w. Mr. Abhishek Mishra , for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM: M.S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ. DATED: 28 July 2025

¶8

PC:-(Per M. S. Sonak, J.)

¶9

Heard Badheka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.1Customs.

¶10

The petitioner had a claim of Rs.11.92 crores and Rs.50 Lakhs (approximately) by way of refund from the respondents. The petitioner had therefore applied for such refund with interest and was pursuing the matter.

¶11

By the time this petition was instituted, the petitioner was granted refund of approximately Rs.11.42 crores., thereby leaving balance of Rs.50 Lakhs or thereabout. However, though the refund of Rs.11.92 crores was made, the same was without any interest even though there was delay in making such refund.

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

13-WP-4913-2024.DOCX

¶14

The petitioner has therefore instituted this petition seeking interest and the balance refund. Respondents have filed a response in which certain error codes were pointed out to the petitioner. Mr. Chandrashekhar, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the moment this issue or error codes were rectified by the petitioner, the request for balance refund will be considered in accordance with law.

¶15

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no error codes were pointed out to the petitioner in respect of the refund amount of Rs.11.92 crores or thereabout. He states that even the error codes for the balance Rs.50 lakhs have now been set out only in the affidavit furnished in the Court.

¶16

At this stage, we do not wish to go into the issue of error codes. It is for the petitioner to sort out this issue of error codes if any, and it would be proper if such is sorted out within four weeks from today. This can always be without prejudice to the petitioner’s contention that error codes were never pointed out earlier.

¶17

The respondents are directed to dispose of petitioner’s application for balance of the refund amount of Rs.50 lakhs and also interest on the refunded amount of Rs.11.92 crores as expeditiously as possible and in any event within three months from today. This is irrespective of the petitioner clearing the issue of error codes or not.

¶18

All contentions of all parties are however left open because we have not examined such rival contentions.

¶19

Page 2 of 3

¶20

13-WP-4913-2024.DOCX

¶21

Petitioner must be heard and a reasoned order must be made and communicated to the petitioner within this period of 3 months. Petitioner must also cooperate with the respondents for the expeditious disposal of the application for refund and interest.

¶22

Petition is disposed of in the above terms without any costs whatsoever.

¶23

(Jitendra Jain, J)

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Suashish Diamond Ltd. v. The Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suashish Diamond Ltd. v. The Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Allen Dsouza vs Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 7

Prakash Sambhaji Nagap vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Late Namdeo Bala Bandal Since Decd. Thr. Lrs and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Rehabilitaion Department and Ors.

Nikhil Kumudchandra Gholani vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Capital India Finance Limited vs Directorate of Enforcement Mumbai Zonal Office 1

Ashok Commercial Enterprises vs Central Processing Unit Cpc Bengaluru