Court Holds Revenue Matters under Group IV of Appellate Side Rules Bar Entertaining Challenge to Summons; Allegations of Torture and Human Rights Violations Not Sufficient to Confer Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling dated October 8, 2026, the Calcutta High Court, presided over by Justice Krishna Rao, dismissed a writ petition filed by Dilip Pujara and others challenging the summons issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners had sought quashing of the summons, invalidation of statements, affidavits, and declarations obtained during interrogation, preservation of CCTV footage, permission to have advocates during interrogation, and investigation into alleged inhuman torture by DRI officials.
The Court observed that the core dispute arose from the summons and consequent investigation steps under the Customs Act, which clearly fall within `Group IV' of the Appellate Side Rules relating to Revenue and Tax Laws. The Court emphasized that writ petitions challenging summons issued under revenue statutes like the Customs Act are not maintainable before it when the Court lacks jurisdiction over such matters under the prescribed classification.
Petitioners' claims of human rights violations and torture during interrogation were considered ancillary and insufficient to alter the true nature of the dispute, which was essentially a revenue matter. The Court noted that no prior complaint had been made to any authority or Human Rights Commission regarding these allegations. Mere addition of prayers related to CCTV preservation or presence of advocates during interrogation did not convert the matter into a residuary category that the Court could entertain.
The Court relied on precedents including the Supreme Court judgment in Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta v. M.M. Exports (2007) and Madras High Court rulings in K. Elumalai v. Commissioner of Customs (2017) and Executive Director, F. Seyad Rabbani v. Addl. Director, DRI (2015) which held that writ petitions challenging summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act are not maintainable at the stage of summons issuance.
Further, the Court rejected the petitioners' reliance on a Division Bench judgment in Rampada Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2023) which dealt with overlapping jurisdiction, holding that no such overlap existed here as the matter was squarely within revenue jurisdiction (Group IV).
Consequently, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum having jurisdiction over revenue matters under the Appellate Side Rules.
The judgment underscores the principle that High Courts must respect their jurisdictional boundaries particularly in specialized revenue and tax matters, and that allegations of procedural irregularities or human rights issues must be properly pursued through designated channels before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Bottom Line:
Customs Act - Summons under Section 108 - Writ petition principally challenging summons and consequential investigation steps falls within revenue matters under Group IV of Appellate Side Rules - Mere addition of prayers regarding CCTV preservation, advocate during interrogation, or impleading Human Rights Commission does not convert matter into residuary jurisdiction - Petition dismissed as not maintainable before Court lacking determination, with liberty to approach appropriate Court.
Statutory provision(s):
Customs Act, 1962 Section 108; Constitution of India, Article 226; Appellate Side Rules, Schedule B, Group IV and Group IX
Dilip Pujara v. Union of India, (Calcutta) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2994778
