SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Kar) 2310

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
 
Veetech Infoline Private Limited, Represented By Shri M R Vijay Kumar, S/o. Shri M.N. Radhakrishnan – Petitioners
Versus
The Additional Commissioner Of Customs, Bengaluru City Customs Commissionerate – Respondent 
Writ Petition No.30257 of 2025 (T-CUS)
Decided On : 24-11-2025
 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Sri. Pradyumna Hejib, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri. Shishira Amarnath, Advocate

Authorities must provide reasoned decisions consistent with natural justice; cryptic orders fail to meet legal standards, warranting judicial intervention.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Sections 58, 61, 71, 72, 111(j), 111(o) and Central Excise Act, 1944 - Petitioner challenges the Order-in-Original dated 10.07.2025 for improper removal of warehoused goods and duty liability. The impugned order was found to be cryptic and unreasoned, violating natural justice principles. (Paras 7, 10, 14.4)

(B) Legal principle - An authority's decision must not be cryptic or unreasoned to uphold principles of natural justice. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner had been accused of improperly renting out duty-free goods after the warehousing period expired without due process. The initial usage was compliant with EOU conditions but the license was not extended after 2007, necessitating duty payment. (Paras 3, 4, 14.4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the order reiterated previous positions without adequate reasoning, warranting scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution. (Paras 8, 10)

Issues: Whether the repeated assertion in the impugned order constituted a failure to observe natural justice. (Para 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the lower authority's decision lacked necessary reasoning, rendering it unfit for enforcement while recognizing the existing legal remedy does not preclude judicial intervention when procedural rights are compromised. (Paras 8, 10)

Result: Petition allowed, order set aside, matter remitted for fresh consideration.

ORDER :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

In this petition, petitioners seek the following reliefs:

“(a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ to quash Order-in-Original Sl.No.506/2025 [DIN 2025 0772 MR 0000224052] dated 10.07.2025 passed by the First Respondent [Annexure-A];

(b) Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 25.05.2011 issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioner demanding duty of Rs.36,88,280/-, the petitioner submitted a reply and contested the proceedings, which culminated in the Order-in-original dated21.02.2012 confirming the demand made by respondent No.1.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority – Commissioner of Customs, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 30.10.2014, aggrieved by the same, petitioner approached the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which set aside the said order of the Appellate Authority and remitted the matter back to the 1st respondent for adjudication and for reconsideration afresh by passing the order dated 27.01.2025. It is the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner submitted a detailed reply and submissions on 13.06.2025 to respondent No.1 in the de novo proceedings, respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the impugned Order-in-original dated 10.07.2025 re-iterating its earlier order which is a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking, unreasoned order without application of mind and without assigning any cogent reasons as to why earlier order has been reiterated thereby violating principles of natural justice and as such, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted that having regard to the availability of equally, efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal before respondent No.2, petitioner is not entitled to relief in the present petition.

6. I having given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

7. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the impugned order, which reads as under:

“M/s. Veetech Infoline Private Limited, Prestige Hosto: Chambers, No.52, 1st Main Road, Seshadripuram, Bangalore - 560 020 (Herein after referred to as M/s VIPL), a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU), under STPI scheme and are having a Private Bonded Warehouse licence(Ground floor G2, First floor F101, F102, F103, Second floor S201, S202, S203 and Third floor T301, T302) and Inbond manufacture sanction No. 531/2000 dated 14-11-2000 issued under Section 59 & 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively.

2. M/s. Veetech Infoline Pvt. Limited, Bangalore have registered as STPI unit (EOU Scheme) with the Customs Division of Customs Commissionerate, Bangalore. They had imported capital goods and procured some goods indigenously with out payment of duty under the EOU Scheme. The said goods were bonded at the said premises.

3. On receipt of information that M/s Veetech Infoline Pvt. Ltd , had let out certain duty free imported capital goods on rent to M/s Llyods Solutions Pvt. Limited, Ground floor and portion of first floor(herein after referred to as M/s.LSPL), M/s.Leads Animation India Pvt. Ltd., second floor (herein after referred to as M/s.LAIPL), M/s. Pheonix Life care Systems, third floor and portion of fourth floor(herein after referred to as M/s. PLS) and M/s. Tidal data Solutions Pvt. Limited, fourth floor (herein after referred to M/s.TSPL) without payment of duty, the officers of Customs Preventive, Bangalore visited the premises of M/s VIPL on 08-07-2010, for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top