Bombay High Court
Obron Impex Ltd through representative Mr Amol DeokarversusUnion of India through Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed, granting the petitioner liberty to submit acceptable material or a reasonable estimation, and the refund claim remains subsisting.
Summary
The petitioner, Obron Impex Ltd, filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a February 2025 letter from the Assistant Commissioner that dismissed its customs refund claim on the ground of missing prescribed documents, namely the refund application in proper proforma with declaration and the original TR‑6 challan. The petitioner argued that the required documents were destroyed in floods and therefore unavailable. The Court observed that while the refund claim was indeed incomplete, the loss of documents due to a flood was a factual circumstance that could not be ignored. Accordingly, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to place on record any acceptable material or a reasonable estimation of the lost documents, noting that the refund claim remains subsisting in law. The petition was therefore disposed, leaving the matter open for the petitioner to pursue appropriate proceedings.
Issues considered
- Whether the customs refund claim can be dismissed for non‑submission of the prescribed refund application and original TR‑6 challan.
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to submit alternative evidence or a reasonable estimation in lieu of the lost documents due to flood.
- Whether the High Court can entertain the petition and stay the disposal of the refund claim under Article 226.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- Customs Refund Application (Form) Regulation — s. 1995
Subjects
- customs refund
- procedural deficiency
- Article 226
- flood loss of documents
- liberty to submit evidence
- refund claim
Judgment
13-WP-3749-25.DOC
JYOTI IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAJESH
MANE
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
RAJESH MANE
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Date: 2026.04.15
15:01:36 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 3749 OF 2025
Obron Impex Ltd through
representative Mr Amol Deokar ..Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Ministry of
Finance Department of Revenue ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Zobin Sheth i/b. YNA Legal Advocates, for Petitioner.
Mr. Jitendra B. Mishra a/w. Abhishek Mishra, a/w. Rupesh Dubey, for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 10 APRIL 2026
P.C.
1. The present Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
challenging the Letter dated 4th February 2025 issued by the Assistant
Commissioner to the Petitioner with respect to the refund claim filed by the
Petitioner. A copy of the said letter is reproduced hereinbelow:
Deficiency Memo -04-02-2025
DIN: - 2025027700000002020C
To,
YNA Legal Advocates, 15th Floor, Mittal Towers "C",
Nariman point,Mumbai-400021
Gentlemen,
Sub: Deficient documents in respect of applications for Refund claim reg.
Please refer your refund application dtd. 17.01.2025 on behalf of M/s.
Obron Impex Pvt.Ltd. and others
Page 1 of 3
Mane
13-WP-3749-25.DOC
2. In this regard, it is to inform that refund claim is found to be
incomplete due to non- submission of
a) Refund Application (Part A, B & C) in proper proforma with declaration.
b) Original TR-6 challan copy w.r.t the payment made to customs
3. In view of the above, your refund application is returned herewith, in
terms of Customs Refund application (Form) Regulation, 1995, for
submission of above deficient documents, as mentioned in para 2 above. The
refund application is disposed off accordingly.
Signed by
Rajesh Pareek
Date: 04-02-2025 15:11:28
Assistant Commissioner
CRRS, CUSTOMS
2. It is evident from the contents of the impugned letter (supra) that the refund
claim filed by the Petitioner has been found to be incomplete on account of non-
submission of the refund application in the prescribed proforma, along with the
requisite declaration and the original TR-6 Challan evidencing payment made to
Customs.
3. The case of the Petitioner, however, is that the said documents are not
available as they were washed away in floods. If that be so, it is unclear as to what
can be adjudicated in the present proceedings.
4. In these circumstances, the present Petition is disposed of with liberty to the
Petitioner to support its refund application by placing on record any acceptable
material, if available, and/or by providing a reasonable estimation, which may be
considered in accordance with law, provided the Petitioner’s claim for refund
otherwise subsists in law.
Page 2 of 3
Mane
13-WP-3749-25.DOC
5. With the aforesaid liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings, the Petition
stands disposed of, keeping all contentions open.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 3 of 3
Mane
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.