Bombay High Court

ARPIT SHAHversusUNION OF INDIA THROUGH CENTRAL GOVT. ADVOCATES AND ORS

Decided: 21 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition must be pursued by filing a statutory appeal under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, and the writ petition is disposed.

Summary

The petitioners, Arpit Shah and another, challenged a Show‑Cause Notice issued by the Joint Commissioner of Customs, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction and that the penalty imposed under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 was improper. The respondents contended that the petitioners had a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section 128A of the Customs Act. The Court examined earlier decisions, notably Commissioner of Customs, CSI Airport, Mumbai v. Gyanchand Jain and Dilkhush Babel v. Union of India, and held that the present case was not suitable for direct judicial intervention. It observed that the penalty was imposed on the petitioner in his capacity as an authorised person of a proprietary concern, which did not preclude the statutory appeal route. Consequently, the Court directed the petitioners to file a statutory appeal within six weeks, keeping the merits open for future challenge. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners must first pursue a statutory appeal under Section 128A of the Customs Act, 1962 before approaching the High Court under Article 226.
Whether a penalty under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act can be imposed on a proprietary concern and its authorised person separately.
Whether the Joint Commissioner of Customs had jurisdiction to issue the Show‑Cause Notice dated 8 April 2025.

Legislation cited

Customs Act, 1962 — s. 112(b), 128A

Subjects

Writ petition
Article 226
Customs Act
Section 112(b)
Section 128A
Penalty
Jurisdiction
Show Cause Notice
Statutory appeal

Judgment

                                                                    920-WP-5323-2026.doc

 PURTI                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 PRASAD
 PARAB
Digitally signed by
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PURTI PRASAD
PARAB
Date: 2026.08.24
17:41:53 +0530

                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 5323 OF 2026

         Arpit Shah and Anr.                                        … Petitioners
                 Versus
         The Union of India and Anr.                                 ... Respondents

                                    __________________________

        Mr. Brijesh Pathak a/w Mr. Dulraj Jain for the Petitioners.
        Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mr. Abhishek Mishra for the Respondents
                              __________________________

                                             CORAM       : M. S. KARNIK AND
                                                           SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
                                             DATED       : 21st AUGUST, 2026.

        P.C. :

        1.                 Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel

        for the Respondents.



        2.                 The challenge in this Petition is under Article 226 of the

        Constitution of India, to the order passed by Respondent No.2 – Joint

        Commissioner of Customs concluding that he did not have the jurisdiction

        to issue Show Cause Notice dated 8th April, 2025 which is at Exhibit “E”. It

        is then contended that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 31st

        December, 2025 be quashed and set aside.



        3.                 Learned Counsel for the Respondents raised a preliminary

           Purti Parab                                                                 1/4
                                                          920-WP-5323-2026.doc

objection that against the Order-in-Original, the Petitioners have a

statutory remedy of filing an Appeal under Section 128A of the Customs

Act, 1962.



4.                Mr. Pathak, learned Counsel for the Petitioners however

invited our attention to the order passed by this Court in Commissioner of

Cus., CSI Airport, Mumbai vs. Gyanchand Jain1. The contention of learned

Counsel for the Petitioners is that the penalty could not have been imposed

on Shilpit Enterprise under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. It is

submitted that the affairs of Shilpit Enterprise were managed by one Arpit

Shah as an authorised person of Shilpit Enterprise. A penalty has been

imposed on Arpit Shah under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. It

is submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners that being a proprietary

concern, no penalty could have been imposed on Shilpit Enterprise since

the proprietor of Shilpit Enterprise is “Shilvi Arpit Shah”.



5.                Mr. Adik, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents

referred to the decision in Chokshi Arvind Jewellers and Anr. vs. Union of

India and Ors.2 decided on 6th August, 2026. It is pointed out that the

very same Order-in-Original dated 31st December, 2025 challenged in this


1     2015(321) E.L.T. 199 (Bom.)
2     Writ Petition (L) No. 14265 of 2026.

    Purti Parab                                                           2/4
                                                          920-WP-5323-2026.doc

Petition was also the subject matter of the challenge and the facts are

identical.



6.                In our opinion the decision in Commissioner of Cus., CSI

Airport, Mumbai vs. Gyanchand Jain (supra) does not assist the case of the

Petitioner. Gyanchand Jain was a case where imposition of penalty was on

the proprietorship concern and also on the sole proprietor separately. In

the given facts and circumstances this Court held that such penalty could

not be imposed separately on the proprietorship concern as well as the sole

proprietor.       It was an admitted fact that Gyanchand Jain was the sole

proprietor of M/s.Vijaybhav.



7.                We have also referred the order dated 17 th August, 2026

passed by this Court in Dilkhush Babel vs. Union of India and Ors.3.

Present is the case where the penalty is imposed only on the proprietorship

enterprise. Moreover, the penalty that was imposed on Arpit Shah was in

the capacity being an authorised person is under Section 112(b) of the

Customs Act, 1962.



8.                We have gone through the findings recorded in the Order-in-

Original at Paragraph Nos. 81.18 and 81.19.          Having regard to these

3     Writ Petition No. 10235 of 2026

    Purti Parab                                                           3/4
                                                          920-WP-5323-2026.doc

findings, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case to entertain this

Petition directly, by-passing the remedy of statutory Appeal.



9.             Keeping the liberty of the Petitioners open to challenge the

Order-in-Original by filing a statutory Appeal, the Petition is disposed of.

All contentions on merits are kept open. If the Appeal is filed within a

period of six weeks from today, the period spent in prosecuting this Petition

being bonafide, the same may be sympathetically considered if an

objection is raised as regards the delay in filing the Appeal is raised.



10.            Writ Petition stands disposed of.



(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)                                      (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




 Purti Parab                                                               4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…