W.P.(C)/6871/2021 of M/S SUMINOE TEIJIN TECHNO KRISHNA INDIA PVT LTD & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on 29 September 2026

O R D E R

%

29.09.2026

1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 26.02.2021 passed by respondent no.2.

2. The brief facts are that the petitioner no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing of woven/knitted fabrics and during the course of business imported polyethylene terephthalate non-woven fabrics from March, 2018 to June, 2019. The petitioner no.1 imported goods by classifying them under tariff entries 56031400/57039090 and exemption was claimed relying upon Notification No.82/2017-Cus. dated 27.10.2017. Respondent no.2 on the basis of an intelligence report issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing reclassification of the imported goods and recovery of the differential duty along with interest and penalty. On 27.10.2020, the petitioner requested respondent no.2 to grant eight weeks’ time to file a reply to the SCN and also prayed for an opportunity of personal hearing before passing any order. The impugned order was passed ex parte on 26.02.2021 and it was recorded therein that notices for personal hearing for the dates 29.01.2021, 10.02.2021 and 18.02.2021 were issued but none appeared.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that no notice was served upon the petitioners and the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The submission is that at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed, restrictions were imposed due to Covid-19 pandemic. The opportunity of hearing was to be granted through VC in terms of the procedure given in the instructions dated 21.08.2020 issued by Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

4. Per Contra learned counsel for the respondents contends that three notices of personal hearing containing the requisite details in consonance with the instructions dated 21.08.2020 were sent through speed post and has produced receipts in Court. The contention is that the petitioner no.1 failed to avail opportunity of personal hearing granted by respondent no.2.

5. Albeit the petitioners have a statutory remedy of appeal but the existence of an alternative remedy does not by itself operate as a bar for exercising writ jurisdiction more so, in case of violation of principles of natural justice. Reference in this regard be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Whirlpool Corpn. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 wherein the apex court has carved out the exception for entertaining the writ petition in spite of there being alternative remedy. The relevant paragraph is as under: - “15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. There is a plethora of case-law on this point but to cut down this circle of forensic whirlpool, we would rely on some old decisions of the evolutionary era of the constitutional law as they still hold the field.”

6. The principles of natural justice are implicit in the discharge of quasi- judicial functions even if the statutes do not expressly provide for it. The petitioners while responding to the SCN had specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing. The case of the respondents is that three notices were sent through speed post but in the impugned order there is no mention of service of notices. The tracking report of speed post if available was not considered. It cannot be lost sight that at the relevant time there were restrictions implemented due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

7. The issue involved is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this court in a case of Govind Global Ventures Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) W.P.(C) 12619/2025 decided on 24.11.2025 held that notices issued through speed post require maintaining tracking details. The relevant para is reproduced as under:- “21. In future, the Department shall ensure that whenever notices are issued through speed post, the tracking receipts and the delivery reports shall be maintained properly in the database.”

8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to respondent no.2 to decide afresh. The writ petition is allowed.

9. In order to avoid any further delay and complication, let the petitioners or their authorised representative appear before respondent no.2 on 29.10.2026 at 11.00 a.m.

10. Needless to say, that the petitioners shall be at liberty to avail remedies in accordance with law, if aggrieved of the decision.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

SHAIL JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 Ch