Ashish Mundra vs. The Commissioner Of Customs

Held

The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) against the impugned order. The Court found no procedural infirmity in the impugned order that would necessitate interference by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court noted that the impugned order did not exhibit arbitrariness concerning the findings of fraud and suppression of facts, which justified invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Court directed that the petitioner should pursue their grievance before the Tribunal. The Court also requested the Appellate Tribunal to endeavour to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of its receipt, provided the petitioner files the appeal along with the requisite pre-deposit.

Facts

The petitioner, Ashish Mundra, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an Order-In-Original (No.TUT-CUSTM-PRV-COM-10/2026) dated 08.04.2026, passed by the respondent, the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin. The petitioner sought to quash this order, alleging it was illegal, unjust, unfair, in excess of jurisdiction, and a violation of the principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Senior Standing Counsel (GST & Customs), appeared before the court. The matter was taken up for final hearing at the admission stage with the consent of both parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned Order-In-Original, dated 08.04.2026, passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, suffers from any procedural infirmity warranting interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was illegal, unjust, unfair, and in excess of jurisdiction, and violated the principles of natural justice. (Implicitly, the petitioner sought to bypass the alternative remedy by directly approaching the High Court). Respondent's Contention: The respondent contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the CESTAT against the impugned order and that the order does not suffer from any procedural infirmity. The respondent also argued that there is no arbitrariness in the impugned order regarding the finding of fraud and suppression of facts, which justified invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962.