Disposed¶26

Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs

Delhi HC17 Jul 2025W.P.(C)/9454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: customs refund; deficiency memo; Articles 226 and 227 writ petition; crediting refund to authorised representative; apostilled Power of Attorney (PoA); statutory interest on refund; Petitioners residing abroad; W.P.(C) 9454/2025; W.P.(C) 9480/2025; W.P.(C) 6855/2023; Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs; Commissioner of Customs; Delhi High Court; disposal with liberty on refund quantum.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Customs Department to remit the refund amounts, along with statutory interest, to the Petitioners' duly authorised PoA holders (Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit); liberty reserved to the Petitioners to file applications in these petitions if aggrieved by the amount of refund. ¶26

Nathan Narayansamy Vs Commissioner of Customs — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Where the refund amount ought to be credited: the Customs Department objected to crediting the refund into the account of a local advocate authorised by the Petitioner and issued a deficiency memo demanding the Petitioner's bank account details. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

Upon confirmation of the authorisations, the Customs Department is directed to remit the refund amount to the two authorised individuals (Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit), who hold apostilled Powers of Attorney for receiving the amounts on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The amounts are to be refunded along with statutory interest to the Petitioners through the PoA holders.

¶24

Key takeaways

If the Petitioners are in any manner aggrieved by the amount of refund, they may file applications in these petitions to agitate the same.ratio¶25
No further orders are to be passed in these matters.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.) disposed of two writ petitions (W.P.(C) 9454/2025 - Nathan Narayansamy; W.P.(C) 9480/2025 - Kalaishelvi S Pillai) filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing a deficiency memo dated 20th June, 2025 issued by the Customs Department on the Petitioners' refund applications, which sought refund in terms of the order dated 15th September, 2023 of a Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(C) 6855/2023 (Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs). The Department had objected to crediting the refund into the account of a local advocate authorised by the Petitioner and demanded the Petitioner's bank account details. On the Petitioner's wife confirming through video conference that both Petitioners had authorised their legal consultants, Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit, to receive payment under apostilled Powers of Attorney, the Court directed the Customs Department to remit the refund amounts, along with statutory interest, to these two PoA holders, granted liberty to file applications if aggrieved by the quantum of refund, and disposed of the petitions along with pending application(s), if any.

¶1

$~21 & 22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 9454/2025 NATHAN NARAYANSAMY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kant Saxena, Advocate. versus

¶4

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Rishi Singhal, Mr. Shubham Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Advocates.

¶5

22 + W.P.(C) 9480/2025 KALAISHELVI S PILLAI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kant Saxena, Advocate. Petitioner in person (Through VC) versus

¶6

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Atul Tripathi, SSC, CBIC with Mr. Rishi Singhal, Mr. Shubham Mishra and Mr. Gaurav Mani Tripathi, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R

¶8

% 17.07.2025

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Nathan Narayansamy under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , assailing the deficiency memo dated 20th June, 2025, issued by the

¶11

This is a digitally signed order.

¶12

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 12:30:15

¶13

Respondent Department, in the application seeking refund filed by the Petitioner.

¶14

The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of refund in terms of the order dated 15th September, 2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. (C) 6855/2023 titled ‘Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs’.

¶15

On the last date of hearing, i.e., 10th July, 2025 it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that it needs clarification as to where the refund amount ought to be credited. In view thereof, the following directions were passed:

¶16

“4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submits that the objection which has been raised by the Customs Department is that it has been asked to credit the refund amount into the account of a local advocate namely Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale as authorized person to collect the refund on behalf of the Petitioner. The Customs Department issued the deficiency memo on the grounds that the details of the Petitioner’s bank account be provided.

¶17

5. In order to resolve this issue, considering that the Petitioner lives abroad, let the Petitioner appear virtually on the next date of hearing and confirm to the Court as to where the amount is to be credited.

¶18

6. List on 17th July, 2025.”

¶19

In view of the directions passed on 10th July, 2025, Ms. Kalaishelvi S Pillai, who is the wife of Mr. Nathan Narayansamy has appeared online. She has confirmed that both of them have authorised their respective legal consultants i.e., Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit to receive the payment on their behalf.

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 12:30:15

¶22

Accordingly, the Customs Department shall remit the amount to these two individuals, who are duly authorised through apostillee Powers of Attorney (‘PoA’), for receiving the amounts on behalf of the Petitioners.

¶23

No further orders are to be passed in these matters.

¶24

Let the amounts be refunded along with statutory interest to the Petitioners through these PoA holders.

¶25

If the Petitioners are, in any manner, aggrieved by the amount of refund, they may file applications in these petitions for the purpose of agitating the same.

¶26

The petitions are disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any.

¶27

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶28

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶29

JULY 17, 2025/ nd/rks

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/07/2025 at 12:30:15

Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs

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

Razia Begum Vs Commissioner of Customs

Suresh Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Union of India & Ors. Vs Hfo Ratnakar Mahala Retd

Gujarat Gas Limited Vs Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board & Anr.

Maya Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Govind Ram Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sheela Devi Bawariya Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Vihan Sharma Th. His Father Hari Gopal Sharma Vs Hdfc Bank & Ors.

Razia Begum Vs Commissioner of Customs

Bharat Steel Traders through Its Proprietor Mr. Bharat Bhushan BANSAL2017 18 Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Sand Vs the Commissioner of Customs

Kalaishelvi S Pillai Vs Commissioner of Customs

Rajesh Gadiya Vs the Additional Commissioner of Customs

Mohammad Shahid Vs the Commissioner of Customs & Ors.