28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1111 OF 2026 Golden Bullion …Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Ors. Through Central Govt. …Respondents Mr. Brijesh Pathak a/w D. Jain, Yogesh H., for the Petitioner. Mr Jitendra B. Mishra, a/w Sangeeta Yadav, Ashutosh Mishra, Rupesh Dubey, for the Respondents. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ. DATED: 22nd JUNE 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Brijesh Pathak, learned counsel for the Petitioner and also heard Mr. Jitendra Mishra along with Sangeeta Yadav and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 2. In this Writ Petition, the Order-in-Original dated 13th November 2025 has been put under challenge primarily on the ground that reply filed by the Petitioner to the show cause notice dated 20th June 2025 has not been taken into account by the Adjudicating Authority before issuing the impugned order. 28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC 3. Mr. Pathak has submitted that upon receipt of show cause notice through Departmental Portal, the Petitioner had submitted its show cause reply through the portal. However, the observations made in paragraph 4 of the Impugned Order-in-Original clearly indicates that the Adjudicating Authority was not even aware of such show cause reply filed by the Petitioner. On such count, the Order-in-Original issued by the Adjudicating Authority has issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, without considering the case of the Petitioner, thus causing serious prejudice to the Petitioner’s interest. As such the Petitioner’s counsel seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 13th November 2025 with a prayer to remand the matter for a fresh decision. 4. Responding to the above arguments of the Petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Mishra, learned Department Counsel, on instructions, submits that it is a fact that the Petitioner had submitted show cause reply through the portal but since the portal is generally managed by the jurisdictional officer, hence, the show cause reply was not transmitted and/or brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Officer. Hence, the discrepancy. 5. In his usual fairness, Mr. Mishra has, however, submitted that if the Impugned Order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh decision, the Departmental Authorities would comply with such direction. 6. The Petitioner’s counsel is also agreeable to such an order from this Court. 28-WP-1111-2026 (C) .DOC 7. In a matter of this nature, if the show cause reply had in fact been filed by the Petitioner, the same ought to have been taken note of by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the Impugned Order. However, as has been noted hereinabove, due to some communication gap, it appears that the show cause reply filed by the Petitioner was not brought to the notice of the Adjudicating Officer. 8. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to accept the arguments of the Petitioner’s counsel that the Impugned Order is vitiated on account of violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, Order-in-Original dated 13th November 2025 is hereby set aside. It is now open for the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh after taking due note of the show cause reply filed by the Petitioner and also after giving fresh opportunity of hearing the Petitioner. The date of hearing may be notified in advance to the Petitioner. 9. Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 11. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits of the claims and counter-claim of the parties. (ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {