Kalaishelvi S Pillai Vs Commissioner of Customs — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

Kalaishelvi S Pillai Vs Commissioner of Customs — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitions disposed of with direction to the Customs Department to remit the refund amounts due in terms of the order dated 15th September, 2023 in W.P. (C) 6855/2023, 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 if aggrieved by the amount of refund; along with pending application(s), if any.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners are entitled to issuance of refund in terms of the order dated 15th September, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 6855/2023 (Nathan Narayansamy v. Commissioner of Customs). +1 more

Court's answer

The refund amounts shall be paid to the Petitioners along with statutory interest through the PoA holders.

Ratio / Principle

Ms. Kalaishelvi S Pillai, wife of Mr. Nathan Narayansamy, appearing online in terms of the directions dated 10th July, 2025, confirmed that she and Mr. Nathan Narayansamy have authorised their respective legal consultants, Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit, to receive the payment on their behalf.

Key takeaways

The Customs Department shall remit the refund amount to the said two individuals, who are duly authorised through apostilled Powers of Attorney ('PoA') for receiving the amounts on behalf of the Petitioners.ratio¶6
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¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, JJ.) disposed of two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 filed by Nathan Narayansamy (W.P.(C) 9454/2025) and Kalaishelvi S Pillai (W.P.(C) 9480/2025), 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 Customs Department had issued a deficiency memo dated 20th June, 2025 on the refund application on the ground that the Petitioner's bank account details be provided, having objected to crediting the refund to a local advocate's account. In terms of the Court's earlier directions dated 10th July, 2025, Ms. Kalaishelvi S Pillai appeared online and confirmed that both Petitioners had authorised their respective legal consultants, Mr. Yogesh Dattatrey Ugale and Mr. Himanshu Sitaram Gavit, to receive payment on their behalf. The Court directed the Customs Department to remit the amounts to these two individuals, duly authorised through apostilled Powers of Attorney, with refund to be made along with statutory interest through the PoA holders, and granted liberty to the Petitioners to move applications if aggrieved by the quantum of refund.

$~21 & 22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9454/2025 NATHAN NARAYANSAMY .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pramod Kant Saxena, Advocate. versus

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

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

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

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

% 17.07.2025

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

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

This is a digitally signed order.

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 12:28:03

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

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’.

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:

“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.

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.

6. List on 17th July, 2025.”

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.

This is a digitally signed order.

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 12:28:03

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.

No further orders are to be passed in these matters.

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

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.

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

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

JULY 17, 2025/ nd/rks

This is a digitally signed order.

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 12:28:03