[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Sandeep Sharma vs Commissioner Of Customs Icd on 13 March, 2026
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 3207/2026
SANDEEP SHARMA
S/O VIRENDER SHARMA
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT:
A-293, 2nd FLOOR, VISHWAKARMA COLONY,
SOUTH EAST DELHI MEHRAULI,
BADARPUR ROAD,
NEW DELHI -110044 .....PETITIONER
Through: Mr. Naveen Malhotra & Mr.
Ritvik Malhotra, Advs.
Versus
1. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS ICD
PATPARGANJ PPG DELHI-110096
.....RESPONDENT NO. 1
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DRI
AHMEDABAD ZONAL UNIT
15 MAGNET CORPORATE PARK OFFICE
SG HIGHWAY NEAR SOLA OVER BRIDGE THALTEJ
AHMEDABAD 380054
.....RESPONDENT NO. 2
Through: Mr. Gibran Naushad, SSC with
Mr.Suraj Shekhar Singh, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:18.03.2026 W.P.(C) 3207/2026 Page 1 of 5
17:05:58
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, J.
1. The petitioner, a partner of M/s Fruit Bounty INC, having office
within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, has invoked the extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court for issuance of directions for
quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 25th April, 2025 issued under
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is not challenging the Show
Cause Notice on merits, however, a reply has been submitted by him
alleging the Show Cause Notice being time barred.
3. As per the facts narrated by the petitioner, an investigation was
set in motion by the respondents and from the office premises of the
petitioner's firm, certain document were seized. Having noticed that the
investigation demonstrate evasion of the duty, a notice under Section
112 and 114AA for penalty came to be issued to the petitioner. It is his
case that no Show Cause Notice for extension of time beyond the period
of six months prescribed under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act,
1962 has been issued.
4. Drawing support from the judgments of Apex Court in the matter
of Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Charandas Malhotra [1971 1
SCC 697 and I.J. Rao Vs. Assistant Collector of Customs and Ors Vs.
Vibhuti Bhussan Bagh & Anr [1989 AIR 1884 SC], it is urged that not
only the notice beyond the statutory mandate provided under Sub-
Section (2) of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, but also no Show
Cause Notice was issued in the matter of extension of period, as decided
by the aforesaid judgments.
5. In addition to above, reliance is also placed on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the matter
of Shri Ram Agro Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors [2019
SCC OnLine P&H 4918], particularly, paragraphs no.12, 18, 23, 24
and 26. As such it is urged that the Show Cause Notice is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
6. As against above, it is the contention of learned counsel for the
respondent, who has appeared on advance notice, that the petitioner
failed to appear in response to the summons and the reply submitted by
the petitioner can be taken into account in light of the aforesaid
judgments and the respondents-authority may pass an appropriate order
in the matter.
7. According to him, it is not only the petitioner who is proceeded
against, but there are other parties also as could be inferred from the
Show Cause Notice and that being so, it is claimed that any order at this
stage shall hamper further proceedings qua the other accused persons.
8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, it is apparent that
the Show Cause Notice speaks of the proceedings being initiated
against seven accused persons including the present petitioner. The
Show Cause Notice depicts that the petitioner has chosen not to extend
cooperation with the respondents in the matter of investigation/inquiry
being conducted in accordance with law.
9. As regards whether the Show Cause Notice is time barred or the
petitioner not served with the Show Cause Notice in the matter of
extension of period provided under Sub-Section (2) of Section 110 of
the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, the same can be looked by the
respondents-Authority as the petitioner has already submitted his
explanation to the Show Cause Notice to that extent.
10. Once the petitioner has submitted his explanation on the issue of
limitation based on the judgments referred above, it can be expected of
the respondents to deal with the contentions of the petitioner including
that of the claim of the respondent that the issue is covered by the latest
judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. Vs.
Jatin Ahuja delivered on 11th September, 2025 in Civil Appeal No.3489
of 2024.
11. In that view of the matter, without going into the issue which is
sought to be canvased by the petitioner through the present petition in
the form of a question of law, we keep the said issue open, to be
considered by the respondents-Authority having regard to the position
of law which the petitioner intends to rely upon, particularly, when it is
not that the petitioner is only proceeded against, but there are other
parties to the proceedings also as could be seen from the Show Cause
Notice. That being so, we refrain ourselves from causing any
extraordinary jurisdiction.
12. As such, we dispose of the present petition with an observation
that the reply tendered by the petitioner to the Show Cause Notice be
considered in the light of the decisions referred above.
13. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of.
14. A copy of this Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(JUDGE)
AJAY DIGPAUL
(JUDGE)
MARCH 13, 2026/ay/ok
