Madras HC Rejects Writ Petition, Says Indo Japan Polymers Woke Up From Deep Slumber to Challenge ₹69.25 Lakh Customs Demand after 2½ Years [Read Order]
The court observed that the petitioner had “woken up from a deep slumber” after 2½ years to contest the order, showing unexplained delay and laches.
The Madras High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Indo Japan Polymers Pvt. Ltd. challenging a customs demand order of ₹69.25 lakh.
The Court held that discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised when a litigant fails to act within a reasonable time. Liberty was reserved for the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appellate authority under the Customs Act.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
Indo Japan Polymers Pvt. Ltd., represented by its director Kaushik A. Palicha, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to quash an order‑in‑original dated 03 March 2023 passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, Chennai‑II. The order raised a demand of ₹69,25,486 against the company.
Despite being aware of the order, the petitioner did not challenge it promptly. The first demand notice was issued on 19 December 2024, but the company did not approach the Court or the appellate authority at that stage. It was only after a recovery notice dated 18 July 2025 that the petitioner filed the writ petition, nearly 2½ years after the original order.
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and cannot be invoked casually after long delays. The Court stressed that litigants must act within a reasonable time to challenge administrative or quasi‑judicial orders.
The judge remarked that the petitioner had “woken up from a deep slumber” only when recovery proceedings were initiated, despite having multiple opportunities earlier. The affidavit filed in support of the writ petition offered no explanation for the delay in challenging the order dated 03 March 2023 or the subsequent demand notice of 19 December 2024.
The bench of Justice N. Anand Venkatesh held that unexplained laches of nearly 2½ years barred relief under Article 226. Entertaining such petitions would undermine the principle of finality in administrative decisions and encourage indolence among litigants.
The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches. The Court clarified that it was not inclined to go into the merits of the customs demand since the petitioner had failed to challenge the order within a reasonable time.
However, Justice Venkatesh left open the option for Indo Japan Polymers to pursue remedies before the appellate authority under the Customs Act “in the manner known to law.” The Court also closed connected miscellaneous petitions and made no order as to costs.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
