SINDER PAL S/O LATE SH. RAM SARUP vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT, PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI & ANR.

W.P.(C)-3002/2021HC Delhi16 September 202613 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, Sinder Pal, challenged an Order-in-Original dated March 26, 2018, imposing a penalty of Rs. 3,00,00,000/- under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, and an Order-in-Appeal dated December 10, 2020, which dismissed his appeal for failing to make the mandatory pre-deposit. The dispute arose from an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) concerning an alleged attempt to export red sanders wood concealed in a container declared as carpets. The Petitioner sought to cross-examine individuals whose statements were relied upon by the adjudicating authority. His appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected for non-compliance with Section 129E of the Act, requiring a pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty. The Petitioner then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it ought not to entertain the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution due to the availability of an efficacious alternate statutory remedy. The Court noted that the Petitioner had availed the first statutory remedy by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but it was rejected for non-compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court reasoned that a statutory condition for entertaining an appeal cannot ordinarily be bypassed by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court, especially when the Petitioner's appeal was not rejected on merits but for failing to fulfill a statutory condition. The Petitioner cannot circumvent the statutory appellate mechanism. The Court explicitly stated that it would not express any opinion on the merits of the Petitioner's contentions regarding cross-examination, reliance on statements, retraction of statement, or the legality and quantum of penalty, as these matters are to be considered by the competent statutory forum. The Petitioner was granted liberty to avail the statutory remedy before the competent appellate forum.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, ought to examine the Petitioner's challenge to the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal, despite the availability of an efficacious statutory appellate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: - The Order-in-Original is vitiated by a breach of natural justice due to the denial of cross-examination of key witnesses (Sukhwinder Singh, Gurpreet Singh, and Chandeep Singh), whose statements formed the basis of the case. - Section 138B of the Act was not complied with, as statements relied upon were not treated as substantive evidence without the makers being available for cross-examination. - The Petitioner's statement, recorded while in custody, was retracted and not properly considered. - There is no independent evidence to establish the Petitioner's ownership or involvement in the export transaction. Revenue's Contentions: - The Petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the writ petition is not maintainable. - The Petitioner failed to comply with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E of the Act, leading to the dismissal of his appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals). - The High Court should not interfere with the statutory appellate mechanism.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 114,Section 128,Section 129A,Section 129E,Section 138B,Section 226,Section 227

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(C) 3002/2021 Page 1 of 13 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Order reserved on: 03.09.2026 Order pronounced on: 16.09.2026 Order uploaded on: 16.09.2026 + W.P.(C) 3002/2021 SINDER PAL S/O LATE SH. RAM SARUP ......Petitioner Through: Mr. Akhil Krishan Maggu, Mr.Vikas Sareen, Ms. Oshin Maggu, Mr. Aryan Nagpal, Ms. Palak Sarna, Advs. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT, PATPARGANJ, NEW DELHI & ANR....Respondents Through: Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC with Mr. Iqbal Singh Bedi, Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jatin Kumar Gaur, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.

The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary and discretionary juri iction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to examine the Petitioner’s challenge to the Orde

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 114

All 48 judgments and leading authorities on Section 114 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →