RAJIV KUMAR RISHI & ORS. vs. CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMSCENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ORS.

W.P.(C)-10083/2025HC Delhi29 September 202610 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the petition. Regarding the first issue, the Court held that merely because a stipulated pattern of questions was followed for a prolonged period does not bind the authorities to continue it. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any specific provision in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, that prescribed a numerical ceiling for questions from major or allied acts. Regulation 6(7) expressly contemplates questions from Allied Acts without specifying a ratio. Therefore, the grievance regarding the proportion of questions from Allied Acts was not accepted. Regarding the second issue, the Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in competitive examinations is extremely limited and confined to examining the decision-making process for mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent illegality. The petitioners failed to demonstrate glaring discrepancies or patent errors in the substantive legal propositions tested. The key answer is presumed correct unless demonstrably wrong, and the onus is on the candidate to show a glaring mistake. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of experts. The mere possibility of another interpretation or disagreement with the proportion of questions does not warrant interference. The difficulty of the paper or a lower success rate does not make the examination defective or a ground for granting licenses or increasing attempts. No ground to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was made out.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, who appeared for the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination on March 18, 2025, under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, challenged the examination paper. Their grievance was that the paper deviated from the pattern of the preceding two decades, with a disproportionately high number of questions (65 out of 150) from Allied Acts, and that some questions were erroneous or ambiguous. They sought a direction to issue them licenses as custom brokers or to relax the six-attempt limit stipulated in the regulations. The respondent authorities contended that the question paper strictly adhered to the prescribed procedure and syllabus, which expressly includes Allied Acts relevant to import and export clearance.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the examination paper for the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination conducted on March 18, 2025, was defective due to a substantial departure from the pattern followed for the preceding two decades, specifically an increased number of questions from Allied Acts (mixed law and fact, turning on Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018). - Assessee's argument: The paper deviated from the past 20 years' pattern, where only 5-10% of questions were from Allied Acts, whereas in 2025, 65 out of 150 questions were from Allied Acts. This change made the paper disproportionate and beyond reasonable expectation. - Revenue's argument: The syllabus, as prescribed by Regulation 6(7), expressly includes Allied Acts relevant to import and export clearance. The framing of questions conformed to the statutory framework and was vetted by experts. 2. Whether certain questions in the examination paper were erroneous or ambiguous, rendering the paper defective (mixed law and fact, turning on the principles of natural justice and fair examination practices). - Assessee's argument: Specific questions were erroneous or ambiguous, leading to incorrect answers or confusion. For instance, a question about SCOMET list categories in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023, was allegedly flawed in its options, and another question about non-bailable offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act improperly drew upon Section 104. - Revenue's argument: Every question and answer was verified for accuracy by an expert committee, and no ground for judicial intervention exists.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 135,Section 104

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 10083/2025 $~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Date of Decision: September 29th, 2026 # CNR No. DLHC010447932025 + W.P.(C) 10083/2025 & CM APPL. 41867/2025 RAJIV KUMAR RISHI & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Verma, Advocate (through VC). versus CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMSCENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES AND CUSTOMS & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, CGSC. Mr. Devvrat Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kartik Sharma, GP and Mr. Mauhan Chawla, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1.

By the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to the respondent authorities to consider issuance of license to all the petitioners to act as a custom broker under the Custom Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. 2. Succinctly put, the petitioners had appeared for the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination conducted as per Regulation 6 F Category Examination, 2025 on 18.03.2025. The said examination is governed by Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The grievance of the petitioners, in substance, is Signed By:HARMINDER KAU

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 135

All 205 judgments and leading authorities on Section 135 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →