Writ Jurisdiction Cannot be Invoked to Bypass Pre-Deposit for Customs Appeal: Bombay HC Imposes ₹50K Costs [Read Order]

The Bombay High Court recently ruled that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the mandatory pre-deposit requirement prescribed for filing a statutory appeal under the Customs Act, 1962, and dismissed two writ petitions challenging an adjudication order arising from alleged large-scale gold and precious stones smuggling.

The decision was delivered by the High Court against two writ petitions filed by Nikhil Garg and Navkar Gold, challenging an Order-in-Original dated September 3, 2025, passed under the Customs Act, 1962.

The factual matrix follows an investigation conducted by the department which pointed towards a large and organised network involved in the illegal import of gold, diamonds and other precious stones through fraudulent financial transactions and dummy entities.

As per the findings, the petitioner was alleged to have facilitated overseas remittances amounting to ₹414 crore, purportedly shown as payments for importing services but which were allegedly used to fund gold and precious stones smuggling operations .

The petitioners, represented by Brijesh Pathak, Vaishnavi Murkute and Aditi Ravidas contended that the statutory appellate remedy was not efficacious, arguing that their contentions and documents submitted in reply to the show cause notice were not considered by the adjudicating authority - resulting in a violation of the principles of natural justice .

The petitioners relied on an earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in GlobeOp Financial Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax, Mumbai (2025) to contend that non-consideration of the noticee’s submissions and documents filed in reply to the show cause notice would amount to a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Karan Adik along with Sangeeta Yadav appeared for the Respondents.

The Division Bench of Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Advait M. Sethna held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory appellate remedy, particularly when the real object of the petitioners was to avoid complying with the mandatory pre-deposit condition for appeal.

The High Court further remarked that the factual situation in the present case was entirely different from the one in GlobeOp Financial Services.

The Court noted that whether the final conclusions reached by the adjudicating authority were correct or well-founded was an issue that could always be agitated before the statutory appellate authority and could not justify bypassing the appellate mechanism provided under the Customs Act.

The Bench further recorded that the plea of violation of natural justice was prima facie untenable and appeared to have been projected only to avoid compliance with the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing an appeal.

It was noted that no material had been placed before the court to affirm that the petitioners were unable to comply with the pre-deposit condition; in such a situation, the Court held, the extraordinary and equitable writ jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked.

The Court further condemned an increasing tendency to directly institute writ petitions to secure interim reliefs on false or frivolous pleas without exhausting statutory remedies, which amounted to an abuse of the Court’s process. The Bench reiterated that High Courts should ordinarily decline to entertain writ petitions when an alternate and efficacious statutory remedy is available, unless exceptional circumstances are clearly pleaded and supported by material.

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court dismissed both writ petitions with costs of ₹50,000 each to be paid to the Maharashtra Legal Services Authority.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates