HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4444 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Gandhi, learned Senior Counsel (through Video Conferencing), assisted by Ms.Vedika Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhananjay Awasthi, learned counsel for the Revenue. 2. Challenge has been raised to the order-in-original bearing no. 18/JC/NOIDA-CUS/2025-26 dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent no. 2 in arising from Show Cause Notice bearing No. 16/ADC/Noida/Cus/2024-25 dated 09.08.2024 (Annexure P-2), whereby penalty INR 1,22,64,000/- each, has been imposed under Sections 112 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, on the petitioner M/s Suneja Card Emporium Pvt. Ltd. with respect to the disputed import transactions performed on the strength of documents that ostensibly disclose those transactions to have been performed by the present petitioner. 3. Submission is, the petitioner had nothing to do with the disputed transactions. Earlier, it had engaged Clearing House Agent (in short 'CHA') to facilitate clearance of goods imported by it. That agent Pramesh Srivastava developed ill intent. The petitioner discontinued its CHA with Pramesh Srivastava. However, the latter had full details of the pets and also documents that enabled him to misuse the same to fraudulently manufacture further documents such as bill of lading etc. and thus obtain import of disputed goods in the name of the petitioner, without any consent or participation by the petitioner, in those transactions. After the disputed transactions came to light, the petitioner lodged an FIR against the said Pramesh Srivastava. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Dhananjay Awasthi, Saumitra Singh M/S Suneja Card Emporium Pvt. Ltd., .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. Though facts were known to the revenue authorities before, the petitioner was unnecessarily dragged in these adjudication proceedings by being first made a noticee along with the offender Pramesh Srivastava and then without any evidence arising against the petitioner, it has been penalized, as noted above. 5. In support of such submissions reference has been made to the statement of Pramesh Srivastava recorded before the adjudicating authority during investigation wherein he admitted to have performed the disputed transactions, on his own account, without involvement or participation of the present petitioner. Reference has also been made to the statement of Sri Ramesh Suneja as he denied receipt of any SMS alert or other alert over email, with respect to the disputed transactions. Thus it has been submitted, it is a case of no evidence and therefore the present petition may be entertained and allowed. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Revenue would submit, factual dispute is involved. It would require appreciation of evidence if no SMS or other alert had been sent to or received by the petitioner on the registered mobile number of the petitioner. Even otherwise, doubt has been expressed if the petitioner had no knowledge of the disputed transactions in real time, inasmuch as though the transactions were performed in the month of August 2023, no action whatsoever was taken by the petitioner against Pramesh Srivastva till as late as 3rd September, 2024 when it first filed a complaint/application, before the police authority. 7. The transaction being high value and pertaining to import in the name of the petitioner and the petitioner being a person who was well acquainted with the procedures of the import, it would be presumptuous (at this stage) to doubt that the petitioner had no knowledge of such proceedings. Therefore in such disputed facts, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Having learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, the parameters for exception to the bar of alternative remedy are well settled. Here the jurisdiction of the authority is not in doubt. Also the opportunity of hearing has not only been granted but it has been fully availed by the petitioner. Further, no challenge was raised upon issuance of show cause notice dated 9th August, 2024. The proceeding has concluded upon the WTAX No. 4444 of 2025 2 impugned order being passed. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. The appellate authority exists and is functioning. As to the objection being raised by learned Senior Counsel, it would require reappraisal of evidence before a firm conclusion may be drawn that the petitioner had no knowledge of the disputed transaction being performed by Parmesh Srivastava. The self-inculpating statement of Pramesh Srivastava apart, we are of the view statutory alternative remedy of appeal available wherein all grounds being pressed in this petition may be pressed before the statutory forum. Thus, we are not inclined to offer any interference under Article. 226 of the Constitution of India, at this belated stage. 9. Since the matter has remained pending for almost two months, we further provide if the statutory remedy is availed within a period of three weeks from today, that may be dealt with on its on merits, without being prejudiced by any observation made in this order. The writ petitoin is dismissed. October 7, 2025 Pratima WTAX No. 4444 of 2025 3 (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad