Delhi High Court
Yogendra Singh Balyan vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 March, 2025
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~52
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 10th March, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 3012/2025 & CM APPL. 14249/2025, CM APPL.14250/2025
YOGENDRA SINGH BALYAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Anurag Soan, Mr Akshay Saxena,
Mr. Rituraj, Mr Nishank, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghwendra Tiwari, SPC (UOI).
Mr. Harpreet Singh, SSC along with
Ms. Suhani Mathur and Mr. Jai Ahuja,
Advs. for R-2 & 5.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
Prathiba M. Singh, J.(Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the impugned Order-in-Original
dated 14th January, 2025. The Exporter – M/s Abhishek Exim had exported
certain goods and claimed duty drawback in respect thereof.
3. The case of the Department was that various fraudulent documents were
relied upon for claiming the duty drawback. Accordingly, two Show Cause
Notices were issued on 14th January, 2021 and 30th December, 2021 respectively.
The reply was filed by the Petitioner and hearings were also held. The impugned
Order-in-Original was passed on 14th January, 2025 holding the Petitioner guilty
and liable to pay penalties inter alia to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000.
4. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner challenges the said impugned order on two
primary grounds:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3012/2025 Page 1 of 4
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
17:52:52
i) Firstly, that the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the
prescribed period of limitation which is three years;
ii) Secondly, that the said issue regarding limitation was not even
considered in the impugned order.
5. Mr. Harpreet Singh, ld. Sr. Standing Counsel submits that the Order-in-
Original clearly records that the Petitioner was a Charted Accountant who was
found to be earning commission of 1% of the invoice value and that fraudulent
documents were submitted for claiming the duty drawback. Mr. Singh places
reliance on paragraph 54 of the impugned order in this regard.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner on the other hand relies upon the decision
of the Gujarat High Court in SJS International v Union of India [SCA no.
20484 of 2019 – Judgment dated 9th December 2021] and Raghav
International Through Proprietor Vishal Bharatbhushan Jain & Ors. v Union
of India [SCA no. 7165 of 2021- Judgment dated 22nd February 2023] to argue
that if the Show Cause Notice is beyond the period of three years, the Petitioner
would be entitled to relief.
7. Heard. The first thing that this Court notices is that the allegations against
the Petitioner are quite serious. Paragraph 54 of the Order-in-Original is
extracted below:
“54. As far as Penalty under Section 114AA of the
Customs Act, 1962 is concerned, I find Section 114AA of
the Customs Act, 1962 deals with penalty upon any
person, if any person knowingly and intentionally makes,
signs or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any
declaration, statement or document which is false and
incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of
any business for the purpose of this Act, shall be liable to
a penalty not exceeding five times of the value of the
goods. In the instant case, I find that Shri Rajbir Singh
has produced false/fabricated documents before theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3012/2025 Page 2 of 4
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
17:52:52
Customs with the help of Shri Manoj Goyal and Shri
Yogendra Balyan. Shri Manoj Goyal and Shri Yogendra
Balyan has raised false/fabricated documents from their
firm for the sake of monetory consideration. Shri
Yogendra Balyan used to receive 1% of invoice value
from Shri Rajbir Singh and Shri Manoj Goyal used to
receive 5% of the invoice value from Shri Rajbir Singh.
In view of the above, it is clear that they have fix share in
the business of Shri Rajbir Singh. Therefore, I hold that
the noticees are liable for penal action under Section
114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.”
8. The Petitioner is a Chartered Accountant who is stated to have assisted
the main accused in producing false and fabricated documents in return for
receiving 1% of the invoice value. The allegations being serious and factual in
nature, this Court in writ jurisdiction would not be able to examine the said
factual aspects. Secondly, insofar as the judgment of the Gujarat High Court is
concerned, the challenge therein was to the belated issuance of the Show Cause
Notice itself and the Show Cause Notices were quashed by the Gujarat High
Court at the instance of the actual exporters. In the present case, Petitioner is not
the actual exporter but a Chartered Accountant who is providing services to the
actual exporter.
9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner
deserves to be relegated to avail of the appellate remedy. Under Section 128 of
the Customs Act, 1962, the order is appealable before the Commissioner
(Appeals). The said provision reads as under:
“128. Appeals to Commissioner (Appeals).–(1) Any
person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under
this Act by an officer of customs lower in rank than a
Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of
Customs may appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals)
within sixty days from the date of the communication toSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3012/2025 Page 3 of 4
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
17:52:52
him of such decision or order: Provided that the
Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from
presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty
days, allow it to be presented within a further period of
thirty days.
(1A) The Commissioner (Appeals) may, if sufficient cause
is shown at any stage of hearing of an appeal, grant time,
from time to time, to the parties or any of them and
adjourn the hearing of the appeal for reasons to be
recorded in writing: Provided that no such adjournment
shall be granted more than three times to a party during
hearing of the appeal.
(2) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form
and shall be verified in such manner as may be specified
by rules made in this behalf”
10. Accordingly, the Petitioner may file an appeal in accordance with law
challenging the Order-in-Original before the appropriate Appellate Authority.
11. All objections including the objection of limitation may be raised before
the Appellate Authority which shall be adjudicated in accordance with law. This
Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
12. The petition is accordingly disposed of with the liberty to the Petitioner to
avail of his appellate remedies. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed
of.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA
JUDGE
MARCH 10, 2025
Rahul/ck
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 3012/2025 Page 4 of 4
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:13.03.2025
17:52:52
