M/S.Mahaveer Nx v. The Chef Commissioner Of Customs (In Situ)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ and W.M.P. Nos.23771 and 23773 of 2024 M/s.Mahaveer NX 137/IAI, Kosappur Road, Theeyampakkam, Madhavaram, Chennai-600 060.
..Petitioner(s) Vs The Chief Commissioner of Customs (In-Situ) Chennai III (Preventive) Customs Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari calling for the records connected with order in original No 107951 of 2024 dated 25.06.2024 passed by the respondent herein and quash the same for having been passed without jurisdiction, contrary to law and in gross violation to the principles of natural justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.N.Viswanathan For Respondent(s):
Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 on the short ground that the impugned proceedings are barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round of litigation, there was a challenge to the order-in-original No.105211 of 2024 dated 22.04.2024 wherein the primary ground of challenge was on the ground that there was no valid service as contemplated under Section 153 of the Customs Act. This Court had set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration while also directing the respondents to provide a copy of the show cause notice to the petitioner within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Petitioner was also permitted to file a reply and respondents were directed to pass an order in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, petitioner filed a reply on 20.05.2024, a personal hearing was granted on 21.06.2024 and the impugned order came to be passed on 25.06.2024.
3. This Court is only inclined to look at the issue of limitation, therefore, it may not be necessary to deal with the facts in great detail except to state that the petitioner was engaged in the import and trading of decorative balloons. Petitioner imported 28 consignments from Malaysia through Port of Chennai.
All the Bills related to the period 06.03.2018 to 09.09.2019. Petitioner would submit that it is liable to be classified under the Head CTH 4016 9590, while the respondent Department was of the view that instead it was liable to be classified under the Head CTH 9503 0090. Show cause notice is dated 01.03.2023. Two copies of the said notices have been produced before this Court. While it is submitted that the show cause notice dated 01.03.2023 was issued on the very same day via Speed Post, however, to a pointed question if there is any material evidence to show that it was in fact despatched on 01.03.2023, learned Senior Standing Counsel was not able to produce any material. The very same show cause notice was despatched to the petitioner on 24.04.2024 and received by the petitioner on 25.04.2024. There is no dispute on the above dates. The instructions from the Revenue also contains an Annexure working out a five year period under Section 28(4) of the Act. The same is extracted below:
4. This Court finds that inasmuch as out of the 27 bills of entries, 22 bills of entries are barred by the five year period prescribed under Section 28(4) of the Act if one reckon extended period from 24.04.2024, the same would be bad for want of jurisdiction. In respect of limitation of the remaining five bills of entries, it prima facie appears to be within the extended period provided under Section 28(4) of the Act. However the further question as to whether it is a case which warrants invoking the extended period is a mixed question of fact and law and therefore this Court is not inclined to go into the above aspect.
5. The next question that arises is whether this Court can dissect an order on the ground that a portion is without jurisdiction inasmuch as it is apparent on the face of record that 22 out of 27 bills of entry are barred by limitation even assuming the revenue is being right in invoking the extended period of limitation. In this regard, it may be useful to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) vs. Hindalco Industries reported in (2003) 5 SCC 194, wherein it was held as under: "12. There can be no doubt that in matters of taxation, it is inappropriate for the High Court to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution either at the stage of the show-cause notice or at the stage of assessment where alternative remedy by way of filing a reply or appeal. ...
13. The second contention urged by Mr. T.L.V. Iyer is that
under Section 11-A, the authority did have power and the High Court had itself found in regard to paragraphs (1) to (13) and directed inquiry in respect of the clandestine removal of the goods. The assessee could have been directed to file a reply in regard to the matters concerning the incorrect valuation and the High Court ought not to have interfered. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for reasons more than one. First, as submitted by Mr. K.K. Venugopal, if an authority which has jurisdiction in regard to one aspect takes upon itself to make enquiry into a matter in respect of which it had no jurisdiction then merely because in regard to one aspect it has jurisdiction, the court cannot ignore the fact of lack of jurisdiction and allow the Tribunal to proceed with the matter in respect of which it has no jurisdiction to make inquiry."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Thus an order which lack jurisdiction in respect of a portion or certain aspects, it may be permissible to dissect the order and interfere with that portion which is lacking jurisdiction.
7. It is made clear that this Court has invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, only in view of the fact that the respondent were not able to demonstrate that there has not been any valid service of the notice dated 01.03.2023 with supporting materials prior to its despatch on 24.04.2024 and receipt on 25.04.2024. To repeat, despite a specific query, no material has been placed before this Court to demonstrate that the notice dated
01.03.2023 was in fact despatched on 01.03.2023 except for assertion by the learned Senior Standing Counsel.
8. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order in respect of the 22 Bills of Entries, in respect of the remaining Bills of Entries viz., Bill of Entry Nos.3027063, 3353512, 3878613, 4316690 and 4828774, petitioner shall work out their remedy in the manner known to law. If any appeal is filed by the petitioner, while admitting the appeal, the appellate authority shall exclude the time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02-04-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order MKA To:
The Chief Commissioner of Customs (In-Situ) Chennai III (Preventive) Customs Commissionerate Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ J.
MKA 02-04-2026