High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of ...RESPONDENTS a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No.66/20't9, dated 05.09.2019, O.R No.17712018, C712019, 08/2019 and :18/201g-Ajn.(Cus)(ADC), passed by the Sth respondent herein against the requesi of the Petitioner herein for clearance of Bills of Entry in respect of used and new goods mentioned lnvoices raised by self against the FOB values at the pr':vailing rate per USD at the time of filing of Bills of Entry, i.e. in respect of (1) Bill of Entry Nos.7628454' dated 14.O8.2018, (2) No.4858612, dated 18.01.2018, (3) No.5106823, dated 07.02.2018 and (4) No.8679595, dated 31.10.2018 and the Appeal Order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in OIA No.HYD-CUS-O0C-APP-065-19-20(APP-|), dated 30.12.2019, the further order passed by the 5th Respondent herein in ORDER-IN-ORIGINAL No 31/2020 (Denovo), OR No.06i2O2O-Adin Cus(ADC) 885, D|N.20200556MD00000E4C00, dated 30.o4.2O2O, t]rder in Appeal passed by the 4th Respondent herein in ORDER-lN-ORIGINAL No.HYD-CUS-89-COM- 23-24 (Denovo), (in O R No.141l2023-Ad1n-Cus (ADC) (DENOVO)' dated 09.10.2023 and the confirmation Appeal Order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein i.e. ORDER-lN-APPEAL No.HYD-CUS-000-APP1-003-24-25, dated 26.06.2024 (Appeal No.120/2023-CUS. O-in-O No llYD-CUS-89'COM-23-2 (Denovo), dated 09.10.2023, by re-valuating old used goods as new goods without considering the original bills submitted by the Petitioner and destructing the original bitls produced and by setting some of them aside, without considering the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) approval granted in favour of the Petitioner by the 8th Respondent herein, contrary to Sections 12, 17 (2) and 111 of The Customs Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of 1962) and Second Proviso to Secr.ron 26 and 27(7\ of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005) and set aside them as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14, l9(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering the original bills producec by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods to release, covered under Bills of Entries as mentioned above in terms of Section 27(7) oI The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering the original bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods to release, covered under Bills of Entries in respect of (1) Bill of Entry Nos,7628454, dated 14.08.2018, (2) No.4858612, dt.1810112018, 3) No.5106823, dl: 0710212018 and (4) No.8679595, dated 31 .10.2018 in terms of Section 27(7) ol The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 20O5), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR SRI KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior standing counsel for CBIC Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: -- W.P.NO: 481 OF 2025 Between: M/s Alaya lnternational Private Limited, Now at Plot No.17 a@ 18, Fab City Road, Raviryal Village, I\,4aheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, Ryo H. No.1 7-1-382lSNi5, Srinivasa Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Donthineni Raghunandan. ...pETlTlONER AND

1. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, (DGGST), Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, Sth Floor, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, Building 8 Bhikalr Cama Place. New Delhi - 110066.

2. The Union of lndia, Ivlinistry of Commerce and lndustry, New Delhi, rep. by its Secretary.

3. The Conimissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals -1, Hyderabad Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

4. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, GST Bhavan, LB Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

5. The Additiohal Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad GST Bhavan, L.B 6. The Deputy Commissioner, lnland Container Depot, Container Corporation of Stadium Road, Basheerbag, Hyderabad-500004. lndia Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

7. The Terminal Manager, Contarner Corporation of lndia Limited, (A Government of lndia Undertaking under Ministry of Railways), lnland Container Depot), Sanathnagar, New Railway Goods; Shed Road, Moosapet, Hvderabad - 500018.

8. The Development Commissioner / Deputy Developrrent Commissiner, Visakhapatnam Special. Economic Zone, Sub Office. 5th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Bashir Bagh, Hyderabad - 500004, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the ORDER-lN-ORIGll\lAL No.69/2020-Adj Cus ADC, dated 08.10.2020, O.R.No.45/2020-Adjn Cus ADC' DIN- 20210856MD00009CF63E, passed by the 4th Responrlent herein against the request of the Petitioner herein for clearance of Bills of Entry in respect of used and new goods mentioned in lnvoices raised by self against the FOB values at the prevailing rate per USD at the time of filing of Bills of E ntry No 51 12365, dated 07.02.2018, whereby rejecting the request of the Petitiorrer for clearance, which was passed fotlowed by a Show Cause Notice in O. R. No.45/2020-Adjn Cus (ADC), C.NoSl26lMisc.l0412020-lCD, D1N 202007s6\1D0000-6S994C, dated 02.O7 .2020, without giving any opportunity to the Petitic ner, by re-valuating old used goods as new goods without considering the original bills submitted by the Petitioner and destructing the original bills produced and by setting some of them aside, without considering the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) approval granted in favour of the Petitioner by the 8th Respondent herern, corltrary to Sections 12, 17 (2) and 111 of The Customs Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of 1962) and Second Proviso to Section 26 and 27(7) of The Special Economtc Zones Aot. 2005 (Act 28 of 2005) and set aside them as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Article 14, t 9(t )(g) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering the original bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods tc release, covered under Bill of Entry as mentioned above in terms of Section 27(7) of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rnay be pleased to direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering the original bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods to release, covered under Bill of Entry No.5112365, dated 07.02.20'18, in terms of Section 27(7) of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.SASIOHARAN NAIR FOR SRI KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior standing counsel for CBIC Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR' Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: - W.P.NO:530 oF 2025 Between: M/s Alava lnternational Private Limited, Now at Plot No.17 and '18, Fab City Road, ilaviryal Village. l,4aheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, Rt/o tt.No.iz-l-382lSN/5. Srinivasa Nagar, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director, Donthineni Raghunandan. ...pETlTlONER AND

1. The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, (DGGST), Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue, 5th Floor, MTNL, Telephone Exchange, Building 8 Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066.

2. The Unlon of lndia, Ministry of Commerce and lndustry, New Delhi, rep. by its Secretary

3. The Conimissioner of Customs and Central Tax, Appeals -1, Hyderabad Commissionerate, 7th Floor, GST Bhavan, L.B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

4. The Principal Commission5r of Customs, GST Bhavan, L,B Stadium Road, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500004, Telangana State.

5. The Additiohal Cbmmissioner of Customs, Hyderabad GST Bhavan, L.B 6. The Deputy Commissioner, lnland Container Depot, Container Corporation of Stadium Road, Basheerbag, Hyderabad-500004. lndia Limited, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad.

7. The Terminal Manager, Container Corporation of lndia Limited, (A Govemment of lndit Undertaking under Ministry of Railways), lnland Container Depot), Sanathnagar, New Railway Goods Shed Road, Moosapet' Hyderabad - 500018.

8. The Development Commissiner / Depuly Development Commissiner, Visakhapatnam Special Economic Zone, Sub Office. 5th Floor, Parisrama Bhavan, Bashir Bigh, Hyderabad - 500004, Telangana State. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitutron of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be ...RESPONDENTS pleased to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS, declaring the ORDER-lN-ORlGlN,qL No.224l2020-Adj Cus JC, dated 06.08.2021, O.R.No.1212021-Adjn Cus JC, DIN- 20210856MD000000CD86, passed by the 4th ResponCent herein against the request of the Petitioner herein for clearance of Bills of Entry in respect of used and new goods mentioned in lnvoices raised by self agairst the FOB values at the prevailing rate per USD at the time of filing of Bills of E:ntry No.6213616, dated 02.05.2018 and the Appeal Order passed by the 3rd Respondent herein in ORDE R-l N-APP EAL No, HYD-CUS-HYC-APP -O42 and O,t3-22'23 (APP- 1 ), d ated 30.11 2022, followed by Shaw Cause Notice in O.R.No.1212021- Adjn Cus JC, DIN-20210256MD0000888C 1 F, dated 02.02.202'1 . bv re-valuating old used goods as new goods without considering the original bills submltted by the Petitroner and destructing the original bills produced and by setting some of them aside without considering the Special Economic Zone (S EZ) approval granted in favour of the Petitioner by the 8th Respondent herein, cor)trary to Sections 12, 17 (2) and 111 of The Customs Act, 1962 (Act No.52 of 1'962) and Second Proviso to Section 26 and 27(71of The Special Economic Zones Act 2005 (Act 28 of 2005) and set aside them as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violatrve of Article '14, 1S(1)(q) and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and Consequently direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignments by considering the original bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods tc, release, covered under Bills of Entry as mentioned above in terms of Sectiorr 27(7) ot The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), forthwith. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court tnay be pleased to direct the Respondents 3 to 7 herein to release the consignm,-'nts by considering the original bills produced by the Petitioner and revaluate the goods to release, covered under Bill of Entry No.6213616, dated 02.05.2018, in terms of Section 27(7\ of The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 (Act 28 of 2005), pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. Counsel for the Counsel for the Counsel for the PetitioneT: SRI K.R.SASIDHARAN NAIR FOR SRI KUTURU RAVINDER REDDY PRATAP REDDY Respondent Nos.1, 3 TO 7: SRI DOMINIC FERNANDES, Senior standing counsel for CBIG Respondent No.2: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.8: - The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE THEACTING CIIIEF JUSTICD SUJOY PAUL AND THE HOIY'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RT![UI(A YARA UIRIT PETITIOil Nos.465, 481 and 53Q of 2O25 COMMON ORDER: (Per tle Hon'ble the Adirq CNef Justie :;uhg Paul) Sri K. R. Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel representing Sri Kuthuru Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel lbr the petitioner and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Stan.ding Counsel for CBIC for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to 7.

2. Regard being had to the similitude of the qrtestions involved, on the joint request, these matters were analogously heard on admission.

3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.465 of 2025. In this petition, the challenge is mounted to the appe.llate orcier dated

26.06.2024, u'hereby the Order-in-Original No.6ri of 20 19, dated

05.09.20 1 9 was affirmed.

4. Learnecl counsel for the petitioner submits that although there exists a statutory alternative remedy uncler the Customs Act, 1962, to prefer an appeal before the Tribun,al, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported 1n Whirlp/ool 2 Corporatioa v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbail, the Writ Petition is very much maintainable, more so, when principles of natural justice were grossly violated.

5. karned Standing Counsel for CBIC submits that the petitioner has an effrcacious statutory alternative remedy. He further submits that these petitions have not been frled within the statutory time limit prescribed to approach the Tribunal and therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CTl LTU' Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.z, the Writ Petitions can'not be entertained.

6. Heard the parties at length. 7 . This is not in dispute that the petitioner had a statutory efficacious alternative remedy to assail the appellate order dated 26.06.2024 before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in WLirlpool Corporation (supra) submits that if the I (1998) 8 SCC I , l2o2ol t9 scc 681 t' 3 principles of natural justice violated, the Writ Pelition is maintainable.

8.Inourconsideredopinion,therecannotbeanyquarrelon the question of 'maintainability' of the petition' 'Ihe difference of 'maintainability' and 'entertainability' is conside r'zd in exterso by the Supreme Court rn the case M/s' Gci&eJ Sara Lee Ltd' v' E:rcise and Taxation Olfrcer - cum - Assess'ing Authority3 ' Every petition, which is maintainable' as a cornpulsion' is not required to be entertained' The singular argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain these pdtions is that the principtes of natural justice were breac"hed and thus' in view of the judgment of the Supreme Corut in Whirlpool Corporation (supra), these petitions can be entertained' Whirlpoot Corlrcration (suPra)

9. The judgment subsequentlY considered bY the Supreme Court in U.P' State Spinning Co. Ltd. v. R.S' Pande5f and it was held as under:- " 17 . . .. But normally, the High Court 'should entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is ,ometiri.tg moie in a case, something going to the.root "i'iit" t"ii"aiction of the officer, sometlLing which would shou' that it would be a case c'f palpable ) r (2023) I SCC 443 ' (2o05) 8 scc 261 4 injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute...."

10. In the aforesajd judgment, the previous judgment was distinguished and it was made clear that mere breach of principles of natural justice will not be sufficient to entertain a petition, Something more must be established which goes to the root of the matter or assails the question of competence of the authority itself. The petitioner has raised no argument about the competence of any authority. karned counsel for the petitioner also could not point out that if the petitioner would have availed the remedy before the Tribunal, it wor:-ld have caused any palpa{e injustice to the petitioner. 1 l. Recently, the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 1O.O4.2O24 in the case of PHR Invent Educational Society v. UCO Banks, disapproved the order of Telangana High Court in W.P.No.5275 of 2021, dated 04.02.2022, wherein a Division Bench of this Court entertained a Writ Petition, despite availability of alternative remedy. The Supreme Court opined that merely because a petition is maintainable, it is not necessary to entertain '(202r) 4 Sr.R. 54 r I I 5 a petition. It is the discretion of the Court to entertain a petition and not a compulsion. The relevant paragraph reads as under: t I " 1 5. It could thus be seen that, this 'lourt has clearly held that the High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved Person. It has been held that this rule applies with greater rigour ln matters involving recoYery of texes, cess. fees, other types of public rnoney and the ducs of bankr and other frnancial institutious. The Court clearly observed that, white dealing with the petitions involving challenge to the action taken for recovery of the public . dues, etc., the High Court must keep in mind that the legislations enacted by Parliament and State Legislatures for recovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuch as they not onllr contain comprehensive procedure for recovery of tht: dues but 'r also envisage constitution of quasi-judicial bodies for redressal of the grievance of aly aggrieved person. It has been held that, though the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are of widest amplitu<le, still the Courts cannot bt: oblivious of the rules of self-imposed restraint evolved by this Court- The Court further held that though tJ:e rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule qf discretion and not one of comoulsion. sHll it is difiicult to fathom any reeaon why the High Court should entertain a petition filed uader Article 226 of the Constitution." (Emphasis Supplied)

12. Thus, mere violation of principles of natural justice cannot be a ground to entertain a Petition 6

13. In view of availability of alternative remedy, the Writ Petitions are not entertained and accordingly, disposed of' The petitioner may avail the alternative remedy. No order as to costs' Miscellaneous petitions pending, il any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY T REGISTRAR ASS T S CTION OFFICER -dr',iraii ivJerabad-500004, Telanoana State' ,. ,n" Directorate General of Goods and Services.Tax' (DGGST)' Ministry of FinanceDepartment,ir-ii""""'Jlin-rFi''llII^L'TdlephoneExchanse' cama Place, New Delhi - 1 10066' blrtiii;il 5' 2 The Secretary, unron'oi i"i[,'rtili"ittl of Cornmerce and lndustry' New Delhi' 5.ili?:fu r']:Hti?1"*:,1"1{^"""*'11',lgtff ffi#'iJx'331'no#o'nn +. rtE?i;Eipr"r c"#i!!i;liE';iC;E"t' GSr Bhavan' L'B stadium Road' - e';ii""ibisn, Hvderabad-500004' TelanganaState' 5. rhe Add ition, I co*,.'ii!!io iJi"iitit#t] -t1yqe.ra " iftffi ii;ad, basheerbas, Hvderabad-5000-04 6 The Deputv corn.i,tiE'n""? qiiii'c.;!"i";; Depot' container corporatlon or ,f.':'#fl 1;:i;,:H'JJitghll',s3lto""#;"uo-nof .rndiaLimited,(A '33gL:,u*5,H,on""1',#in*:1ltr"mi'Hlixg'a'ii1tooo,,o"' bad G ST B hava n' L' B Hvderabad - 500018 a TtE"o!rEl"pmlni c-ommissiner' Deputy D-evelopment Commissiner' visakhapatnam sp""iuiEl"""'ii 2bne'-suo omce 5th Floor' Parisrama B;-;;;;'B;th- e5sh'Ivo;"bad - 50000-4' Telanoana State' e one cc to snr xurLiAii"rifuirlben*nEbbv-pn'{rnp REDDY' Advocate .to 8I"'"% to sRl DoMlNlc FERNANDES' sen'or standing counsel for cBlc ,, to,l"ua? to sRt cADt PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dv' soLlclroR GENERAL oF INDIA [oPUC] 12. Two CD CoPies PSK, GJP C."., HIGH COURT DATED:2910112025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.465, 481 & 530 of 2025 r He S r.1 14: ,k J ($( 01 ulr)025 .' ; i/ i. t-. / . r - - -// \-'-y11 --')'z' DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS g\4 t31r-l"f