Petitioner challenged a belated show cause notice in a customs duty drawback case. Court refused to quash notice, allowing Petitioner to file a reply within 30 days for a subsequent hearing.
Petitioner granted 30 days to file reply; personal hearing to be fixed before decision on merits of the notice.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~99
Through: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu and Mr. Ayush Mittal, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kunal Rawat, SPC with Ms. Ekta and Ms. Dolly Verma, Advocates. Mr. Gibran Naushad, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Harsh Singhal and Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Advocates
CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 4
W.P.(C) 2949/2025
Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:0 3.04.2025 18:15:54
third parties. Overvalued goods are alleged to have been exported using these IECs to obtain duty drawback benefits and IGST refund.
“Delay in filing the special leave petition is condoned.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 4
W.P.(C) 2949/2025
Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:0 3.04.2025 18:15:54
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent(s)-caveator, we find that this special leave petition arises out of Special Civil Application No.7165 of 2021 wherein, the period of assessment was 2011-2015. In respect of the said period, the dates of issuance of the show cause notices are 16.03.2021, 01.04.2021, 01.04.2021 and 25.05.2021 which means that the show cause notices were issued 6 to 10 years thereafter. There is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in issuance of notices to the respondents-herein.
In the circumstances, a challenge made to the show cause notices before the High Court was successful inasmuch as the action of the respondent authority was held to be belated and hit by delay and latches. Consequently, the show cause notices were quashed. We do not think that the impugned order would call for any interference in this case.
Hence, the special leave petition is dismissed on the basis of delay and latches.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 4
W.P.(C) 2949/2025
Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:0 3.04.2025 18:15:54
hearing the Petitioner and other similar noticees, the order shall be passed in accordance with law.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA JUDGE
APRIL 2, 2025/ MR/ss
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 2949/2025
Signed By:NAMITA DHYANI Signing Da te:0 3.04.2025 18:15:54
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a show cause notice issued in a customs investigation involving multiple entities was issued belatedly due to delay.
Whether the Petitioner is eligible for a pre-hearing reply and personal hearing in the present proceedings.
Whether Rule 16A of Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 applies to the Petitioner as opposed to the main accused.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s Raghav International & Others v. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶20
SCA No. 7165/2021
Union of India & Ors. Versus M/S Raghav International & Anr.Referred¶20
SLP(Civil) 24022/2023
Mohammed Afroz Memon
Union of India
Prathiba M. Singh
Rajneesh Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
