The Bombay High Court has issued notice in a writ petition challenging a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) nearly thirteen years after the underlying export transaction, while agreeing to tag the matter with another pending petition involving an identical legal issue.
The bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Advait M. Sethna kept the petitioner’s request for interim relief pending and granted liberty to seek urgent relief if the authorities proceed further with the adjudication.
The petition assails the legality of a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice dated 10 April 2026 issued in relation to transactions that took place during 2012–13.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
According to the petitioner, the notice suffers from an inordinate and unexplained delay, rendering the proceedings arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It was argued that initiating adjudicatory proceedings after such a prolonged lapse of time violates settled legal principles governing exercise of statutory powers within a reasonable period.
The petitioner submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Union Bank of India v. City Bank, N.A., reported in 2022 (382) ELT 293 (SC). Relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling, the petitioner contended that the show cause notice deserves to be quashed as being legally unsustainable due to the extraordinary delay in initiating action. Counsel further informed the Court that Writ Petition No. 2163 of 2026, involving the same legal issue, is already pending before the High Court and requested that both matters be heard together to ensure consistency in adjudication.
The department informed that the connected writ petition is already listed for hearing on 3 August 2026. The respondents therefore suggested that the present petition also be listed on the same date and heard alongside the earlier matter.
Accepting the request, the Division Bench issued notice to the respondents, making it returnable on 3 August 2026. Since counsel for the respondents accepted notice, formal service was waived. The Court further directed that the present writ petition be tagged with Writ Petition No. 2163 of 2026, thereby enabling both petitions involving the common legal issue to be considered together.
The Bench, however, deferred consideration of the petitioner’s prayer for ad-interim relief until the returnable date. At the same time, it protected the petitioner’s interests by granting liberty to make an urgent mention before the Court if the DGFT authorities issue any further communication fixing a hearing or otherwise seek to proceed with the adjudication during the pendency of the writ petition.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
