2026 (5) TMI 1532

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....GPAUL, J. 1. The present writ petition assails communications by the department dated 14.01.2026 and 12.12.2025 ["Impugned Communications"] issued to the petitioner and seeks directions to the respondents for refund of an amount of Rs.3,20,87,688/- on account of this amount having been deposited by the petitioner under protest pursuant to the aforementioned impugned communications. The prayer in the petition stands reproduced thus: a. "Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction quashing and setting aside the Impugned Demand Notices dated 14.01.2026 and 12.12.2025; b. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondents to forthwith refund ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng to Rs.3,20,87,688 for the period of April 2023 to February 2025, while impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 indicated differential duty of Rs.3,57,95,501/- for the period of February 2021 to March 2023. 6. Regarding the latter communication, a reference to our Order dated 16.04.2026 reveals that the respondents have undertaken not to bring impugned communication dated 14.01.2026 into effect, thereby limiting the petitioner's challenge only to the impugned communication dated 12.12.2025. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kunal, submits that the impugned communication has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner, whose pecuniary jurisdiction is capped at Rs.5,00,000/-, and that the notice was therefore issued in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r's own calculation of differential duty. 13. Lastly, he refutes Mr. Kunal's arguments on inadequacy of pecuniary jurisdiction on the part of the officer who issued the impugned communication on the ground that the document is merely a letter and not a notice as contemplated under Section 28 of the Act, and that notwithstanding the same, the impugned communication was issued after the approval of the Commissioner of Customs Preventive (competent authority). 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 15. We are not persuaded with the petitioner's argument that the impugned communication is a formal demand notice, since the impugned communication was issued as a follow up to the statement of the petitioner's own authorized representa....