Blaming Lawyer's Negligence Not Enough: Kerala HC Dismisses 329-gram Gold Confiscation Case [Read Order]
The petitioner's prolonged inaction after receiving the notice distinguished his case from other precedents where delays had been condoned.
Gold-confiscated-taxscan
Gold-confiscated-taxscan
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the confiscation of 329 grams of gold, holding that the petitioner's own lack of diligence in pursuing his case, and not just his lawyer's negligence, was fatal to his claim.
Abdul Gafoor, the petitioner, challenged an order from the Joint Commissioner of Customs that had resulted in the confiscation of 329.37 grams of gold ornaments seized from his possession in September 2022. He filed the writ petition after a demand notice was issued for payment, seeking to either quash the original order or be allowed to file a delayed appeal.
The petitioner's primary contention was that he had entrusted his lawyer with filing an appeal against the confiscation order within the statutory period. He claimed he was under the impression that the appeal had been filed and only discovered the lawyer's lapse when a demand notice was served. He sought the court's intervention to either allow his appeal to be filed out of time or to quash the original confiscation order.
Understanding Common Mode of Tax Evasion with Practical Scenarios, Click Here
The court, however, found that while the lawyer's negligence might have been the initial cause for missing the appeal deadline, the petitioner himself was not diligent. The court noted that a demand notice was served on the petitioner in January 2025, yet he waited nine months, until October 2025, to file the present writ petition.
The court emphasized that an appeal should have been filed within 90 days, with a maximum 30-day grace period, a deadline the petitioner failed to meet by a wide margin.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the petitioner's prolonged inaction after receiving the notice distinguished his case from other precedents where delays had been condoned. The court concluded that there were no justifiable grounds to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
