920-WP-5323-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 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 : 21 st 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 PURTI PRASAD PARAB Digitally signed by PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2026.08.24 17:41:53 +0530 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 17th 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