Disposed¶11

Lalit Kumar Babu La Tater v. Union of India Repesented by Ministry of Finanace & Ors.

Delhi HC11 Dec 2025W.P.(C)/7155/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; customs; show cause notice service; DRI officer as 'proper officer'; Section 28 Customs Act; Canon India review (Review Petition No. 400 of 2021); non-service plea held false/afterthought; writ petitions disposed; remedies against Orders-in-Original left open; Section 14 Limitation Act benefit; Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater v. Union of India; W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & W.P.(C) 7155/2021; Prathiba M. Singh & Shail Jain JJ.; decided 11 December 2025.

What did the court decide?

Both writ petitions along with pending application(s) disposed of; the challenge to the SCNs and Orders-in-Original held not to survive; all remedies in respect of the Orders-in-Original left open; liberty to seek benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period of pendency. ¶11

Lalit Kumar Babu La Tater Vs Union of India Repesented by… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the Show Cause Notices and Orders-in-Original issued by DRI officers, who were alleged not to be 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, 1962 in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Canon India, are null and void. +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

In view of the Supreme Court's review decision in Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. (Review Petition No. 400 of 2021), whereby DRI and similarly situated officers were held to be proper officers competent to issue show cause notices under Section 28, the challenge in these petitions no longer survives.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Service of the SCN on the petitioner was duly effected; the plea of non-service was clearly false and an afterthought.

¶7

Key takeaways

All remedies in respect of the Orders-in-Original are left open to the petitioner.ratio¶9
The petitioner may pray for benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of the period during which the petitions remained pending before the Court.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petitions under Article 226 by Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater challenging (i) SCN dated 18.09.2019 and Order-in-Original dated 14.09.2020 (W.P.(C) 7155/2021) and (ii) SCN dated 29.04.2019 and Order-in-Original dated 29.09.2020 (W.P.(C) 6402/2021) as null and void on the ground that DRI officers are not 'proper officers' under the Customs Act, 1962 per Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (18) SCC 563. HELD: (a) In view of the Supreme Court's review decision in Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 (Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd.), holding that officers of DRI, Customs (Preventive) Commissionerates and similarly situated officers are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and competent to issue show cause notices thereunder, the challenge in these petitions no longer survives; (b) the plea of non-service of the SCN was false and an afterthought - the Department's affidavit showed dispatch of the SCN and corrigendum (18.11.2019) to registered addresses, a co-noticee's email of 23.11.2019 acknowledging the SCN, the petitioner's appearance on 27.11.2019 and signed acknowledgement of seized items, personal hearing on 29.01.2020 before Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-I), JNCH, and RUDs emailed on 16.01.2020 to Vaidat Legal Services acting for all noticees including the petitioner; (c) all remedies in respect of the Orders-in-Original left open; (d) petitioner may claim Section 14 Limitation Act, 1963 benefit for the pendency period. Petitions disposed of.

¶1

$~11& 12

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

Date of decision: 11^th December, 2025 Uploaded on: 12^th December, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 6402/2021& CM APPL. 20096/2021

¶5

LALIT KUMAR BABU LAL TATER .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Sahil Yadav, Adv. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advs. 12 AND + W.P.(C) 7155/2021 & CM APPL. 22596/2021 LALIT KUMAR BABU LA TATER .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Sahil Yadav, Adv. versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA REPESENTED BY MINISTRY OF FINANACE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Ms. Suhani Mathur, Mr. Jatin Gaur, Advs. Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr.Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advs. for UOI.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

¶9

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)

¶10

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶11

The present petitions have been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , challenging the following as null and void :

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶14

Page 1 of 7

¶15

●Show Cause Notice (hereinafter, ‘ SCN’ ) dated 18^th September, 2019 as well as the Order-in-Original dated 14^th September, 2020 in W.P.(C) 7155/2021 .

¶16

●SCN dated 29^th April, 2019 as well as the Order-in-Original dated 29^th September, 2020 in W.P.(C) 6402/2021 .

¶17

The prayer in these writ petitions are as under:

¶18

In W.P.(C) 7155/2021

¶19

“A. Pass interim directions and stay for the effect and/or proceedings, etc. emanating or related with impugned show cause notice bearing F. No. DRI/HQ-CI/Enq-13(Int19)/2015/3391 dated 18.09.2019 as well as the O-I-O dated 14.09.2020 passed by Respondent no. 3 and further steps as may be contemplated qua the Petitioners;

¶20

B. Pass any other/further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present matter”

¶21

In W.P.(C) 6402/2021

¶22

“a) Pass an order to declare the Show Cause Notice dated 29.04.2019 as well as Order-in-Original dated 29.09.2020 as a null and void in the light of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Mis Canon India Private Limited versus Commissioner of Customs, Civil Appeal No.1827 Of 2018 dated 09.03.2021.

¶23

b) Pass such other or further order(s)/ direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to secure the ends of justice.”

¶24

The only issue that was raised in these petitions was in respect of the decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2021 (18) SCC 563 , wherein, it was initially held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter, ‘DRI’ ) Officers are not ‘proper officers’ under the Customs Act, 1962.

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶27

W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

The said decision has been reviewed and in Review Petition No. 400 of 2021 titled Commissioner of Customs vs. M/s. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. the Supreme Court held as under:

¶30

“168. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we conclude that: […]

¶31

(vi) Subject to the observations made in this judgment, the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Commissionerates of Customs (Preventive), Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence and Commissionerates of Central Excise and other similarly situated officers are proper officers for the purposes of Section 28 and are competent to issue show cause notice thereunder. Therefore, any challenge made to the maintainability of such show cause notices issued by this particular class of officers, on the ground of want of jurisdiction for not being the proper officer, which remain pending before various forums, shall now be dealt with in the following manner:

¶32

a. Where the show cause notices issued under Section 28 of the Act, 1962 have been challenged before the High Courts directly by way of a writ petition, the respective High Court shall dispose of such writ petitions in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and restore such notices for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28.

¶33

b. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the respective High Court and appeals have been preferred against such orders which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and the show cause notices impugned therein shall be restored for adjudication by the proper officer under Section 28.

¶34

c. Where the orders-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 28 have been challenged before the High Courts on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, the respective High Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeal

¶35

Signature Not Verified

¶36

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶37

Page 3 of 7

¶38

before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).

¶39

d. Where the writ petitions have been disposed of by the High Court and appeals have been preferred against them which are pending before this Court, they shall be disposed of in accordance with this decision and this Court shall grant eight weeks’ time to the respective assessee to prefer appropriate appeals before the CESTAT.

¶40

e. Where the orders of CESTAT have been challenged before this Court or the respective High Court on the ground of maintainability due to lack of jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices, this Court or the respective High Court shall dispose of such appeals or writ petitions in accordance with the ruling in this judgment and restore such notices to the CESTAT for hearing the matter on merits.

¶41

f. Where appeals against the orders-in-original involving issues pertaining to the jurisdiction of the proper officer to issue show cause notices under Section 28 are pending before the CESTAT, they shall now be decided in accordance with the observations made in this decision.”

¶42

Thus, the challenge in these petitions no longer survives. An additional issue has been raised in respect of service of the SCN which clearly appears to be a plea which is an afterthought.However, in order to satisfy the aspect of service, the Court had called for an affidavit by the Department in which it is stated as under:

¶43

“8. It is further submitted that, the issue of non-serving the notice is a matter of fact not a question of law.

¶44

8.1 It is submitted that the subject SCN was issued by the then Pr. ADG, DRI headquarters on 18.09.2019 to M/s Meroz Exim, Ms. Sweety, Sh. Kalpesh B Tater (all Directors of Meroz Exim), Sh. Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater & and Sh. H. Vijay Kumar. Corrigendum of the SCN was issued on 18.11.2019. As per records, the SCN was dispatched to all

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶47

W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter

¶48

Page 4 of 7

¶49

noticees including Ms. Sweety Mehra, Sh. Kalpesh B Tater & Sh. Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater at their registered / last known address. The SCN along with its corrigendum were also displayed on notice board of the office.

¶50

8.2 Further, an email dated 23.11.2019 (email [email protected]) was received from Ms. Sweety Mehra, one of the co-noticee of the SCN and one of the Director of M /s Meroz Exim. The said email mentioned "Kindly refer to the Panchnama Dated 09-11-201 6 Drawn at the premises of RZ-18, D Block, Jai Vihar, Delhi-110043. In this connection it is requested that show Cause notice in this case has been issued. So it is requested that all items seized in this case as per panchnama dated 09-11-2016 may be released to my

¶51

authorized representative Namely- Shri Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater."

¶52

8.3 Further, Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater had appeared on 27.11.2019 and signed an acknowledged receipt of the seized items on behalf of Ms. Sweety. He had also mentioned email id [email protected] alongwith id [email protected] as his email id.

¶53

From the above, it appears that SCN was served and Sweety Mehra, Director of M/s Meroz Exim after receipt of SCN requested for release of seized items which was received by Sh Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater from this office. Thus, it appears that Lalit Kumar Babulal Tater and Sh. Kalpesh B Tater, Director of M/ s Meroz Exim were aware of the issuance / receipt of the SCN.

¶54

8.4 Personal hearing was granted to the all the noticees to present their defences on 29.01.2020 before Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-I), JNCH. Vaidat Legal Services (Advocates 85 Solicitors) representing all the noticees (including Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater, Sweety Mehra & Kalpesh B Tater ) vide letter dated 09.01.2020 requested

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶57

Page 5 of 7

¶58

copies of all relied upon documents bearing no. 01 to 29 as enclosed to SCN no. DRI/HQ/50D/Enq-34/2016/Pt.I-CI dated 18.09.2019 as well as other documents, which they require to prepare and present reply on behalf of notices in the personnel hearing on 29.01.2020 since they have not received the said documents earlier. Accordingly, the Relied upon documents were emailed on 16.01.2020 to the advocate Vaidat Legal Services (Advocates & Solicitors) representing the noticees including Sweety Mehra, Sh. Kalpesh B Tater (both Directors of Meroz Exim) & Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater.

¶59

8.5 Also, Vaidat Legal Services (Advocates & Solicitors) vide letter dated 17.01.2020 addressed to Office of Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-l), JNCH had further sought on behalf of all the noticees (including Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater, Kalpesh B Tater, & Sweety Mehra) certain other documents.

¶60

8.6 It is also pertinent to mention that the present writ has been filed by Vaidat Legal Services (Advocates & Solicitors) on behalf of Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater who had earlier sought RUDs before Commissioner of Customs (Nhava Sheva-I), JNCH on behalf of the noticees (including Sweety Mehra, Sh. Kalpesh B Tater & Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater) to the SCN dated 18.09.2019.

¶61

8.7 In view of above, it appears that Lalit Kumar Babu Lal Tater, Sh. Kalpesh B Tater, & Sweety Mehra, (both Directors of Meroz Exim) have received/ were well aware of the issuance of SCN.”

¶62

After perusing the above affidavits, the Court is fully satisfied that the service of the SCN has been effectedand the raising of the plea of nonservice was clearly a false one and an after-thought.

¶63

Under these circumstances, the writ petitions no longer survive.

¶64

Signature Not Verified

¶65

Signed By:TANISHKA GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶66

W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter

¶67

Page 6 of 7

¶68

All remedies in respect of the Orders-in-Original are left open.

¶69

Needless to add, in respect of the period during which the present petition remained pending before this Court, the Petitioner may pray for benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in accordance with law.

¶70

These petitions along with pending application(s), if any, are disposed of.

¶71

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE

¶72

SHAIL JAIN JUDGE

¶73

DECEMBER 11, 2025 /tg/ck

¶74

Signature Not Verified

¶75

Signed By:TANISHKA W.P.(C) 6402/2021 & connected matter GUPTA Signing Da te:1 2.12.2025 17:14:14

¶76

Page 7 of 7

Lalit Kumar Babu La Tater v. Union of India Repesented by Ministry of Finanace & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit Kumar Babu La Tater v. Union of India Repesented by Ministry of Finanace & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ujjwal Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Teena Choudhary Vs Union Public Service Commission & Anr.

Fayzilatkhon Gulyamkhodaeva Vs Commissioner of Customs

Mr. Vijay Bhaskar Verma Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anjuman Muntazim Auqaf Dargha Hazrat Maqdoom Samauddin through Secretary Inam Hasan Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Deepanshu Bansal Vs Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Management/Chairman Balvantray Mehta Vidya Bhawan Senior Secondary School and Anr. Vs Anil Kumar Aggarwal and Anr.

Poonam Vs the Directorate of Education & Ors.

Fayzilatkhon Gulyamkhodaeva Vs Commissioner of Customs

Sunil Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs Export Icd Tughlakabad

Venkata Mani Bhaskara Rao Kondangi Vs Commissioner of Customs, Igi Airport & Ors.

I Money Wallet Private Limited through Its Director Vs Sales Tax Officer Class II / Avato, Ward 64, Zone 4 & Anr.

Jhs Svendgaard Laboratories Limited Vs Government of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

M/S Manav Minerals Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.