MOHAMMAD NAWAB KHAN THRO HIS WIFE FAREEEDA BEGUM vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-18202/2025HC Delhi02 September 20268 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mohammad Nawab Khan, arrived in India with a gold bar weighing 117 grams, which was detained by Customs Authorities on January 28, 2024. The respondent claims the petitioner's statement was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, admitting the gold was undeclared and waiving the need for a Show Cause Notice or personal hearing. An oral Show Cause Notice is alleged to have been issued on January 27, 2024, with the petitioner purportedly requesting waiver of the notice and hearing on February 2, 2024. The gold was appraised on February 2, 2024, and the adjudicating authority passed an Order-in-Original on April 15, 2024, ordering absolute confiscation of the gold. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging this order, seeking quashing of the confiscation, release of the gold, and waiver of detention charges.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that it ought not to entertain the writ petition at this stage. The principal issue was whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when a statutory appellate remedy is available. The court noted that the adjudication proceedings had culminated in an Order-in-Original, and the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy under the Customs Act, 1962. While acknowledging that the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, the court found that the petitioner's challenge involved disputed questions of fact, such as whether the statement under Section 108 was voluntarily made, whether an oral Show Cause Notice was given, and the nature of communications made to the petitioner. These factual matters are more appropriately examined in statutory appellate proceedings where the entire adjudication record is available. Therefore, the court concluded that the case did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and the petitioner's assertion of a breach of natural justice was insufficient to bypass the statutory appeal. The court explicitly stated it had not examined the merits of the challenge, including the validity of the statement, the Show Cause Notice, the waiver, or the legality of the confiscation. All such contentions were left open for the appellate authority.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, ought to examine the petitioner's challenge to the Order-in-Original dated April 15, 2024, when the said order is amenable to challenge before the statutory appellate authorities under the Customs Act, 1962? Assessee's Contentions: - No valid Show Cause Notice was issued prior to confiscation. - The statement relied upon by the respondent under Section 108 of the Act was not recorded in accordance with law. - The petitioner was made to sign documents without understanding their contents. - The alleged waiver of the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing cannot dispense with the mandatory requirements of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. - Reliance was placed on Ms. Shubhangi Gupta v. Commissioner of Customs & Ors. to argue that waiver cannot dispense with the requirement of a Show Cause Notice. Revenue's Contentions: - The petition is not maintainable in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction as a complete statutory mechanism exists for challenging the Order-in-Original. - Factual assertions regarding the circumstances of statement recording, alleged coercion, and non-issuance of an oral Show Cause Notice can be examined by the statutory appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 108,Section 124

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 18202/2025 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI %

Judgment reserved on: 19.08.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 02.09.2026

Judgment uploaded on: 02.09.2026 # CNR No. DLHC010959202025 + W.P.(C) 18202/2025 MOHAMMAD NAWAB KHAN THRO HIS WIFE FAREEEDA BEGUM

.....Petitioner Through: Dr. Ashutosh, Ms. Fatima, Mr. Rohit Swarup, Mr. Dalip Singh, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Pravej Hasan, Mr. Abhijeet Sagar, Mr. S.Vijaykanth, Advs.

versus

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with Mr. Suraj Shekhar Singh, Mr. Hasan Haider and Mr. Anish Mishra, Advs.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHAIL JAIN J U D G M E N T ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1.

The principal issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition is whether this Court, in exercise of its writ juri iction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, ought to examine the Petitioner's ch

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 108

All 37 judgments and leading authorities on Section 108 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →