SAIYYADA KHATOON vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

W.P.(C)-102/2026HC Delhi02 September 202611 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Petitioner, an Indian citizen, arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 19.12.2023, after travelling to Saudi Arabia. She was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel. A gold bar weighing 100 grams, marked "100 grams fine gold 999.9", was detained/seized due to "Green Channel Violation" vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/19-12-2023/003353. The Petitioner's statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, was recorded on the same date, wherein she admitted omissions and commissions, agreed to pay duty, fine, and penalty, and stated she did not require a show-cause notice or personal hearing. The Respondent asserts an oral show-cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023.

What did the High Court hold?

The Court held that the Petitioner's claim for unconditional release of the gold bar could not be accepted. The primary issue revolves around whether a notice under Section 124(a) was issued within the statutory period. The Respondent's assertion that an oral show-cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023, supported by the Petitioner's statement waiving the need for a written notice and personal hearing, directly disputes the Petitioner's foundational factual assertion of a complete absence of notice. The Petitioner's allegations that the statement was obtained under coercion and was not voluntary involve disputed questions of fact. The Court, in its writ jurisdiction, is not inclined to conduct a roving factual inquiry into the circumstances of the statement's recording or the alleged coercion, especially when the Petitioner seeks to rely on CCTV footage and the Respondent relies on contemporaneous records. The decision in Jatin Ahuja (supra) was noted as not dispensing with the necessity of determining whether a notice was in fact given. Therefore, the question of whether the oral proceedings constituted compliance with Section 124(a) cannot be conclusively determined based on one version of disputed facts. The Court clarified that its judgment does not express an opinion on the Petitioner's ultimate liability, the confiscability of the gold, or the validity of the statement, leaving these matters to the competent authority. The Petition was dismissed as the Petitioner's claim for automatic release could not be accepted based on the absence of a written notice when an oral notice was asserted.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the unconditional release of the seized gold bar on the ground that no written show-cause notice was issued within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the Respondent's assertion of an oral show-cause notice and the Petitioner's waiver. Assessee's Arguments: - The requirement of a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Act is mandatory and cannot be waived by a statement under Section 108. - The first proviso to Section 124 permits oral notice only at the request of the person, and there is no record of such a request from the Petitioner. - The statement under Section 108 is not voluntary as it was not in the Petitioner's handwriting, was prepared by officials, and its contents were not explained. - Reliance was placed on Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja, to argue that non-issuance of notice within the statutory period under Section 110(2) leads to the return of goods. Revenue's Arguments: - The Petitioner's statement dated 19.12.2023 constitutes a voluntary admission and waiver of the show-cause notice and personal hearing. - An oral show-cause notice was issued on 19.12.2023 under the first proviso to Section 124. - The Petition involves adjudication of disputed facts regarding the statement recording and proceedings, which is not appropriate for writ jurisdiction under Article 226.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 110(2),Section 124,Section 108

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

W.P.(C) 102/2026 $~ * 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. DLHC010001222026 + W.P.(C) 102/2026

SAIYYADA KHATOON

.....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. Akash Verma, SSC- CBIC with Ms. Aanchal Uppal, Adv.

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 the Petitioner is entitled to unconditional release of the gold bar weighing 100 grams, detained/seized on 19.12.2023, on the ground that no written show-cause notice was issued within the period prescribed under Section 110(2) of

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 124

All 152 judgments and leading authorities on Section 124 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →