M/S PARSAN BROTHERS vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

WP/15199/2024HC KarnatakaKAHC01029678202421 August 2025Author: M.NAGAPRASANNA5 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the writ petition deserved to succeed due to the inaction of the Assessing Officer for four years following the order of the Commissioner of Appeals. The Court found that the Commissioner of Appeals had directed the Assessing Authority to pass necessary orders in consonance with natural justice and the statute, but no such order was passed. The Court reasoned that the petitioner's claim for refund was kept in cold storage without any justification. Therefore, a writ of mandamus was issued directing the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (respondent No. 1) to consider the petitioner's refund claim and grant the refund along with applicable interest. The interest was to be calculated from 16.04.2021, the date of the Commissioner of Appeals' order, until the refund reached the petitioner. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s. Parsan Brothers, imported goods on 15.11.2018 and paid excess customs duty. On 12.09.2019, they informed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (respondent No. 1) about the excess payment and sought cancellation or reassessment of the bills of entry. The Commissioner of Appeals, by an order dated 16.04.2021, allowed the petitioner's claim and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Authority for necessary orders in accordance with natural justice and statute. Despite this, no action was taken by the Assessing Officer for four years. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the sanction of their refund claim, including interest for the delay.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of excess customs duty paid, along with applicable interest, in light of the order of the Commissioner of Appeals and the subsequent inaction by the Assessing Authority? (Question of law and fact, concerning the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and principles of natural justice). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had paid an excess of Rs. 7,00,000/- in customs duty in 2018, which has been with the respondents for four years. They contended that despite the Commissioner of Appeals remitting the matter for reconsideration in accordance with law, the Assessing Officer has failed to pass any order, keeping the refund claim in abeyance. They sought a direction for the refund with interest. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Customs Act, 1962

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 15199 OF 2024 (T-CUS) BETWEEN:

M/S. PARSAN BROTHERS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT 18B, SUKEAS LANE, 1ST FLOOR, KOLKATTA – 700 001. REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. RAJ KUMAR PARSAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGISTERED UNDER PARTNESHIP ACT, 1932.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRINCY PONNAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VIRAJ KADAM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, INLAND CONTAINER DEPOT, CONTAINER CORPORATION OF INDIA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU – 560 066.

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE,

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

CENTRAL BOARD OF INDIRECT TAXES, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI – 110 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DHRUVA KUMAR K. N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION FOR CALLING UPON THE REFUND APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SAME, RESPONDENT NO.1 MAY BE ORDERED TO SANCTION THE REFUND CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, ALONG WITH INTEREST FOR DELAYED REFUND WITHOUT ANY DELAY AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking consideration of the refund application of the petitioner and ordering such refund claimed of the petitioner in terms of the representation so submitted.

Heard Sri.Princy Ponnan and Sri.Viraj Kadam, learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Dhruva Kumar K.N., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3, Sri.Ajay Prabhu M, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

Certain goods are imported in terms of bills of entry on 15.11.2018 and the petitioner had paid excess customs duty on the said date. On 12.09.2019, the petitioner intimates to the 1st respondent that excess customs duty was paid and sought

cancellation or reassessment of the bills of entry so made. The Commissioner of Appeals in terms of his order dated 16.04.2021 allowed the claim and remitted the matter back to the hands of the Assessing Authority to pass necessary orders in consonance with the principles of natural justice and the statute. The matter was remitted on 16.04.2021, four years have passed by, not a dot of ink is placed on the paper for reconsideration as directed by the Commissioner of Appeals to the Assessing Officer pursuant to the order of remand.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate that for the last four years, his excess payment of Rs.7,00,000/- as customs duty has been lying with the respondent since 2018 and the claim for refund is kept in cold storage despite the order of the Commissioner of Appeals who had remitted the matter to consider the plea of the petitioner, in accordance with law after affording such opportunity.

In the light of no order being passed by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the order of the Commissioner of Appeals, the petition deserves to succeed with a direction to be

issued to the respondent No.1 to answer the claim for refund of the petitioner in terms of law and effect such refund within a time frame.

With the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER [i] Petition is allowed. [ii] Mandamus issues to the respondent No.1 to answer the claim of the petitioner and grant such refund along with applicable interest, as is available in law, in accordance with law from 16.04.2021 till it reaches the doors of the petitioner.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44 CT:SS

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →