OD -6 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE WPO/161/2025 NAVEEN GOEL VS CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL EASTERN ZONAL BENCH KOLKATA AND ORS BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE OM NARAYAN RAI Date : February 10, 2026.

Appearance :

Mr. Rishi Raju, Adv.

Ms. Shreya Mundhra, Adv.

…for the petitioner Ms. Manasi Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Bijitesh Mukherjee, Adv.

…for the respondents The Court: This writ petition is principally directed against an order dated August 9, 2024 whereby the petitioner’s appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata (hereafter “CESTAT”) was dismissed on the ground of not fulfillment of the statutory condition of pre-

deposit.

Initially, an order in original dated July 14, 2014 was passed against the petitioner (as also his brother and a company named M/s. Beriwala Impex Private Limited). The said order in original was sought to be assailed by filing a writ petition being WP No. 1181 of 2014 before this Court. The writ petition was dismissed by an order dated September 22, 2016 observing as follows:-

“ It appears from the narration in the impugned order that, the petitioner had made a voluntary statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act before the Custom Authorities. It also appears from such narration that, the show cause notice to the petitioner was issued to the local address of the petitioner as known to the Custom Authorities. The petitioner claims to derive knowledge of the impugned order from a conversation that, the petitioner claims to have had with his father at such local address. Apparently the father of the petitioner has received the impugned order. From the narration of events as here, the irresistible conclusion is that, the petitioner was served with the show cause notice at the local address given by the petitioner to the Custom Authorities. It also appears that, the petitioner was aware of the proceeding being undertaken by the Custom Authorities in view of the fact that, the petitioner and his brother had made voluntary statements before the Custom Authorities. The petitioner therefore being well aware of the proceedings had chosen not to participate therein. The plea of breach of principles of natural justice is therefore, not available to the petitioner. The petitioner has not established that, any fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the Custom Authorities or that, any of the grounds on which a writ petition is maintainable despite availability of an alternative remedy has happened warranting the High Court to intervene.

The impugned order is appealable under Section 129(e) of the Customs Act, 1962.

In such circumstances, the W.P. NO.1181 of 2014 is dismissed. Interim orders, if any, stand vacated. No order as to costs.”

The said order was carried in appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench.

The said appeal being APO/308/2016 was dismissed by an order dated December 20, 2019 observing as follows:-

“It is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant that a huge amount has been levied as penalty and it would not be possible for the writ petitioner to put up the statutory deposit and avail of the statutory remedy.

Ordinarily, the requirement of a statutory deposit as a pre-condition to the filing of an appeal is not accepted as a ground not to avail of the regular remedy and approach the writ Court instead. It is elementary that an appeal is a creature of statute and any conditions imposed in the exercise of the right of appeal need necessarily to be complied with to avail of such remedy.

In any event, upon this Court enquiring of the appellant as to whether the quantum of penalty imposed could have been legally done, it is submitted that the penalty imposed was illegal. However, it appears that the relevant authority had due jurisdiction to impose the quantum of penalty imposed in this case.

In the light of the aforesaid and since the order impugned herein does not reveal the consider