Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12297

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Sam Koshy, Suddala Chalapathi Rao, JJ
Spice Jet Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
WP.No.27343 of 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mayur Reddy
For the Respondents: Domenic Fernandez

While statutory appellate authorities are strictly bound by the limitation periods specified in the Customs Act, the High Court, under Article 226, possesses the extraordinary jurisdiction to condone delays in the interest of justice when rigid technical compliance would otherwise result in the denial of a substantive right to appeal.

Headnote:(A) Customs Act, 1962 - Section 128 - Limitation period for filing appeal - Appellate authorities rejected appeals as time-barred beyond the 60+30 day condonable limit - Court held that while statutory authorities cannot condone delay beyond expressed statutory limits, Constitutional Courts under Article 226 retain power to intervene when technical application of statutes results in complete foreclosure of statutory remedies without merit-based adjudication - Procedural laws are intended to advance justice rather than defeat substantive rights.

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged an original customs order regarding the undervaluation of imported leather goods and subsequent penalty impositions. Appeals before appellate authorities were dismissed solely on the ground of limitation as they were filed outside the statutory 90-day window allowed under the Customs Act. The petitioners approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay and a hearing on merits.

Findings of Court:
The Court acknowledged that statutory authorities lack jurisdiction to condone delay beyond the limit set by Section 128. However, recognizing that the delay was not deliberate and that the exclusion of all appellate scrutiny would cause grave injustice, the Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone the delay subject to cost.

Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delay in filing a statutory appeal before customs authorities when the delay exceeds the limit prescribed by the Customs Act.

Ratio Decidendi: While statutory appellate authorities are bound by the rigid limitation periods prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962, the High Court’s power under Article 226 is not similarly constrained. In appropriate cases where the delay is not malafide and the exclusion of remedy results in substantive injustice, the Court may condone such delay to ensure merit-based adjudication.

Result: Writ Petition partly allowed; appellate order set aside with directions to restore the appeal subject to payment of costs.

Table of Content
1. factual background concerning the dispute over customs order and the subsequent dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. arguments regarding the interpretation of statutory limitation versus the court's constitutional powers under article 226. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. discussion on distinguishing between statutory authority limitations and the high court's extraordinary power to prevent injustice. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
4. final order directing the condonation of delay and restoration of appeal on merit-based adjudication. (Para 40 , 41 , 42)

O R D E R: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Suddala Chalapathi Rao)

1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order in Original No.184/2022/ADJN-CUS-ADC, dt.13.03.2023 on the file of the Addl. Commissioner Customs, GST LB Stadium i.e., the 1st respondent herein as confirmed by the common Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS-000-APP1-227-228-23-24, dt.27.03.2024, on the file of the 2nd respondent (Appeals-1), and the consequential common Final Order No.A/30015-30024/2025, dt.20.01.2025 passed by the 3rd respondent - Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Southern Region Bench in Customs Appeals No.30748-30757 of 2024 by calling for the records and consequently set aside the original order No. 184/2022/ADJN-CUS-ADC, dt.13.03.2023 passed by the 1st respondent as arbitrary contrary to the provisions of customs Act 1962 and consequent set aside the same.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, having its registered office at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-1D, New Delhi – 110037, India, and an additional operational office at 319, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon – 122016, Haryana. The petitioner No.1 is a well-established entity in the aviation and airline industry, carrying on diversified operations including air transportation, warehousing of goods, logistics, and allied trade services, and it has been issued with an Importer Exporter Code (IEC) bearing No.0593003667.

3. The petitioner No.1 entered into a sub-sub-lease deed dt.28.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease Deed”) with M/s GMR Hyderabad Aviation SEZ Limited (hereinafter referred to as “GHASL”) for the establishment of a Free Trade Warehousing Zone (FTWZ) within the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) premises. It is engaged in the business of trading and warehousing as contemplated under the terms of the Lease Deed and the leased premises were handed over to the 1st petitioner in August 2021 and is commercial operations commenced in September 2021. Further, as per Clause 3 of the said Lease Deed, the petitioner No.1 was permitted to allow third parties to use the premises on a license basis and Clause 3.2(a) specifically stipulates that the petitioner shall not create any lien or charge over the leased premises in favour of third parties, however, it may permit third parties to use the premises on a license basis, subject to the condition that such sub-users shall be solely responsible for compliance with all obligations under the Lease Deed, and not limited to payment obligations.

4. It is stated that prior to execution of the Lease Deed, the petitioner No.1 had obtained approval from the Government of India vide reference No.9-481/SCZ/HYD/2019/103-SEZ, dt.05.02.2020, for establishing a trading unit admeasuring 33,000 sq. meters on Acre 1.60 guntas of land within the FTWZ situated at GHASL, Mamidipalli Village, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, and the said approval was extended from time to time. The SEZ framework is intended to promote exports, attract foreign direct investment (FDI), and generate employment opportunities by providing a competitive, efficient, and hassle-free business environment for entities engaged in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12297

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABADP. Sam Koshy, Suddala Chalapathi Rao, JJSpice Jet Limited – AppellantVersusAdditional Commissioner of Customs – RespondentWP.No.27343 of 2025

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
P. Sam Koshy, Suddala Chalapathi Rao, JJ
Spice Jet Limited – Appellant
Versus
Additional Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
WP.No.27343 of 2025