M/s.Topsia Estates Pvt., Ltd., Vs The Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M/s.Topsia Estates Pvt., Ltd., Vs The Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II.No.717/2015 dated 30.08.2015 of the 1st respondent should be quashed and the petitioner's appeal considered afresh on its merits, in so far as it relates to payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund, in light of the Delhi High Court judgments in Pioneer India Electronics and Riso India.

Ratio / Principle

As no one had entered appearance for the petitioner even after the Registry printed the petitioner's name in the cause list, and the writ petition was of the year 2016, no further indulgence could be shown and it was inferred that the petitioner was not interested to prosecute the case.

Key takeaways

The Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs.ratio¶28
The connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.23158 of 2016) was consequently closed.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P.No.26932 of 2016 & W.M.P.No.23158 of 2016 — M/s. Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. (1) Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Chennai and (2) Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refunds, Chennai – IV Commissionerate (High Court of Judicature at Madras, Abdul Quddhose, J.) — Decided 02.01.2026 — DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. The writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, sought a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II.No.717/2015 dated 30.08.2015 of the 1st respondent and to have the petitioner's appeal considered afresh on its merits, in so far as it relates to payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund, in light of the Delhi High Court judgments in M/s. Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Principal Commissioner of Customs v. Riso India Pvt. Ltd. At the hearing of 05.12.2025 the learned counsel on record for the petitioner stated he was no longer the petitioner's counsel and endorsed that fact in the court bundle; the Court had the Registry print the petitioner's name in the cause list in place of the counsel on record. As no one entered appearance thereafter and the petition was of the year 2016, the Court inferred the petitioner was not interested to prosecute the case, declined further indulgence, dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution with no costs, and closed the connected miscellaneous petition. The merits of the refund-interest grievance were not adjudicated; the two Delhi High Court precedents were invoked only in the prayer and were not engaged with by this Court.

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

and

W.M.P.No.23158 of 2016

M/s.Topsia Estates Pvt. Ltd., Suite No.4001, Raj Chambers, 7B Justice Dwarkanath Road, Kolkata – 700 020, Represented by its Authorized Signatory Shri R.Bharathkumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refunds, Chennai – IV, Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001. ... Respondents

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the 1 st respondent leading to issuance of Order in Appeal No.C.Cus.II.No.717/2015 dated 30.08.2015 and quash the same and further direct the 1 st respondent to consider the petitioner’s appeal afresh, on its merits, in light of the Judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the cases of M/s.Pioneer India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union of India and the Principal

Page No.1 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

Commissioner of Customs Vs. Riso India Pvt. Ltd., in so far as it relates to payment of interest for delayed sanction of refund.

For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.G.Meganathan Junior Standing Counsel *****

ORDER

There is no representation on the side of the petitioner.

2. On the last hearing, i.e., on 05.12.2025, the learned counsel on record for the petitioner submitted that he is no longer the counsel for the petitioner

and he has also made an endorsement to that effect in the court bundle. In view of the same, this Court had directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list in the place of the learned counsel on record for the petitioner.

3. As directed by this Court, Registry has printed the name of the petitioner in the place of counsel on record for the petitioner. Till date, no one has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner. This writ petition is of the year 2016. In view of the same, no further indulgence can be shown and it can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested to prosecute the case.

Page No.2 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

4. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. No

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

02.01.2026

Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No sp

To

1.The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-II), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

2.The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Refunds, Chennai – IV, Commissionerate, Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

Page No.3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

sp

W.P.No.26932 of 2016

02.01.2026

Page No.4 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis