This compilation indexes 12 rulings pronounced by Indian High Courts in 2026 in which Section 108 is a cited provision. The cases span three distinct legal contexts: (1) Customs Act, 1962 proceedings involving gold seizure, detention, confiscation, and limitation challenges at international airports and border points; (2) Karnataka Municipalities Act proceedings relating to property tax exemption; and (3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) criminal matters involving anticipatory bail applications in abetment-of-suicide cases. The compilation is intended for use by legal researchers, customs practitioners, and litigation support teams who need a structured, court-verified reference of proceedings citing Section 108 across these domains.

Research index only. This page is a structured case-law reference compiled from publicly available judicial orders. It does not constitute legal advice, tax advice, or any form of professional recommendation. Readers should consult the full text of each judgment and verify its current status before relying on it for any purpose.

The statutory framework in one paragraph

Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 empowers any gazetted officer of customs to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary — whether to give evidence or to produce a document or any other thing — in any inquiry which such officer is making in connection with the smuggling of any goods. A person so summoned is bound to attend and state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined. Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) — a separate and entirely distinct provision — deals with the offence of abetment of suicide, prescribing punishment for a person whose act of instigation or abetment is connected to another person's act of taking their own life. The two provisions share the same section number across different statutes and appear together in this compilation solely because the automated corpus picker indexed them by numeral; researchers should take care to note which statute's Section 108 is engaged in each individual ruling below.

The 12 rulings

1. Gkem International Pvt Ltd & Ors vs Commissioner Of Customs Icd Ppg And

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 7 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 28(4), 28(9), 28A
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioners filed a writ petition (W.P.(C) 5796/2025) before the Delhi High Court seeking a declaration that a Show Cause Notice dated 24.06.2022 was non-est in view of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, on the ground that it was issued beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The petitioners additionally prayed for recall of an Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2024 which was premised on the said SCN; although an alternate statutory remedy of appeal was available against the OIO, the petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction on the basis that the OIO itself was passed beyond the permissible period.

2. Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs Anand Navalchand Pugaliya

Bench: Allahabad High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 111, 123, 130
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: Three appeals (Custom Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of 2026) were preferred by the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), assailing a common order dated April 23, 2025 passed by the CESTAT, Allahabad. Per the source preview, the CESTAT had affirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and set aside the adjudicating authority's order of absolute confiscation of gold bars, packing materials used for concealment, silver bullion, and cash.

3. Mohd Arif vs Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 112, 124, 125, 128, 153(3), 77
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, an Indian national, filed W.P.(C) 5411/2026 before the Delhi High Court after arriving at Terminal-3 of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 17.02.2024 by Flight No. XY-329 from Riyadh via the Green Channel. Upon interception and examination by customs authorities, two gold bars weighing 233 grams and engraved "SUISSE" of purity 998 were recovered from him and detained vide Detention Receipt No. DR/INDEL4/17.02.2024/003806 dated 17.02.2024; the writ petition arose from the proceedings that followed the detention.

4. Mohammad Umar vs Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 110(2), 124(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, an Indian citizen, filed W.P.(C) 42/2026 before the Delhi High Court in connection with the interception and detention of two gold bars totalling 233 grams of 995 purity, found in his possession upon arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Medina by Flight No. SV 758 on 10.04.2023; the goods were detained vide Detention Receipt No. 001633 dated 10.04.2023. The Detention Receipt described the goods as one transparent plastic bottle containing two gold bars of 233 grams purity 995, wrapped with customs tape, and the appeal was filed against the proceedings that followed the detention.

5. Mohammad Junaid vs Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 110(2), 124(a), 124(b), 129D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 6066/2026 before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an Order-in-Appeal dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) — which had set aside the adjudicating authority's order permitting re-export of the seized gold bar on payment of redemption fine, penalty, and applicable customs duty, and had instead ordered absolute confiscation — and consequential restoration of the Order-in-Original dated 28.05.2025. The principal grievance per the source preview was that the gold bar was confiscated without issuance of a valid show cause notice under Section 124 of the Act, and accordingly the proceedings culminating in the order were challenged.

6. Fahim Ahmad vs Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 110(2), 124, 128, 129D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner filed W.P.(C) 17561/2025 before the Delhi High Court seeking quashing of an Order-in-Appeal dated 27.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 20.08.2024. The petitioner also sought release of a gold bar weighing 116 grams that was detained/seized by customs authorities on 02.06.2024 upon his interception after he had crossed the Green Channel at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, following his arrival from Bahrain, along with waiver of any detention or warehouse charges.

7. Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum vs Commissioner Of Customs

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 2 September 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 110(1), 110(2), 124(a)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, an Indian citizen, filed W.P.(C) 152/2026 before the Delhi High Court in connection with events arising from his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 27.02.2024 after travelling from Jeddah to Bahrain and thereafter to Delhi; upon interception by customs authorities after crossing the Green Channel, a Detention Receipt bearing No. DR/INDEL4/27-02-2024/003893 dated 27.02.2024 was issued recording that one cut plastic bottle containing eight yellow metal bars weighing 290 grams wrapped with customs tape was seized. The petitioner also sought a direction that no detention or warehouse charges be recovered from him at the time of release of the said gold.

8. The Secretary vs The Commissioner

Bench: Karnataka High Court
Date: 28 August 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 110(e), 94(1)
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The Secretary of Sri Rama Educational Society (R), represented by Sri D Rama Krishna Murthy, filed Writ Petition No. 203678 of 2026 (LB-RES) before the Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ directing the respondents — the Commissioner and City Municipal Council, Sindhanur, Raichur District — to issue Form-3 document (Property Tax Assessment Extract/Acknowledgement) in respect of property bearing CMC Nos. 7-1-225/1A and 2A, Sindhanur, recognising exemption from property tax under the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. This matter does not arise from income-tax proceedings; Section 108 appears as a cited provision in the source data in the context of this municipal/property tax proceeding.

9. Sachin vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 12 August 2026
Sections engaged: 108
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is a first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS (Misc. Criminal Case No. 36912 of 2026) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, in connection with crime No. 506/2026 registered at Police Station Dewas Industrial Area, District Dewas, for an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Per the source preview, the prosecution's case was that the applicant abetted and mentally harassed the deceased — a former partner in a firm named M/S Reliable Real Estate who had retired via a registered Partnership Deed on 31.3.2023 — due to which the deceased committed suicide.

10. Mukesh Jain vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Bench: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date: 24 July 2026
Sections engaged: 108
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: This is a first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 of the BNSS (Misc. Criminal Case No. 32234 of 2026) before the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore, also in connection with crime No. 506/2026 registered at Police Station Dewas Industrial Area, District Dewas, for an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Per the source preview, the prosecution's case was that the applicant, who was working as an employee of a firm named "Bhomiya Ji", abetted and mentally harassed a deceased partner of that firm (constituted in 1995, from which the deceased had retired on 15.5.2019), causing the deceased to commit suicide.

11. Abdul Samad vs Commissioner Of Customs & Anr

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 15 July 2026
Sections engaged: 108, 129D
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The petitioner, an Indian passport holder and resident of Mumbai, filed W.P.(C) 9182/2024 before the Delhi High Court arising from his arrival at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi from Dubai on 11.10.2013. Per the source preview, the petitioner was intercepted after crossing the Green Channel, upon which customs officers recovered 477 gold chains weighing 2,516.5 grams and two gold biscuits weighing 100 grams each (aggregating 2,716.5 grams), besides Indian currency of Rs. 19,090/- and 785 UAE Dirhams; the Customs Declaration Form submitted had disclosed 'Nil'.

12. Raj Mahto vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr

Bench: Delhi High Court
Date: 15 May 2026
Sections engaged: 108
Outcome: Outcome not specified in source
Procedural / substantive ground: The applicant filed Bail Application No. 3007/2025 before the Delhi High Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the CrPC, 1973), seeking anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 98/2025 dated 06.02.2025 registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station Bhalswa Dairy, District Outer North, Delhi. Per the source preview, the FIR was registered in connection with the death by suicide of the complainant's daughter on 26.01.2025, with the applicant — a classmate of the deceased and fellow student of Class XII at Sarvodaya Co-Ed Vidyalaya No. 1, Shakti Nagar — being implicated after the deceased's mobile phone contact records were examined.

Patterns across these 12 rulings

Gold smuggling at IGI Airport as a dominant fact pattern (Customs Act cases). Cases 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 all involve individuals intercepted at the Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi after crossing the Green Channel, with gold bars or gold chains recovered from their possession. The interception-after-Green-Channel scenario is the recurring procedural trigger for the customs proceedings in a majority of these rulings.
Writ jurisdiction invoked against customs orders despite alternate statutory remedies. Cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 11 were all filed as writ petitions before the Delhi High Court challenging customs adjudication orders or orders-in-appeal. In at least Case 1, the source preview expressly notes that an alternate statutory remedy of appeal was available but the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction on limitation grounds; similar procedural postures appear across the other airport-gold cases.
BNS Section 108 (abetment of suicide) as a distinct cluster in the same numeral. Cases 9, 10, and 12 involve Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — not the Customs Act — in the context of anticipatory bail applications. Researchers must distinguish the statute carefully: all three are criminal proceedings in High Courts (Madhya Pradesh HC for cases 9 and 10; Delhi HC for case 12) and share no subject matter with the customs cluster.
Confiscation vs. re-export as a contested binary in customs proceedings. Cases 5 and 6 explicitly involve the question of whether goods should be absolutely confiscated or permitted to be re-exported on payment of redemption fine, penalty, and customs duty — a recurring substantive dispute in airport-gold interception matters before the Delhi High Court in 2026.
Absence of reported final outcomes. All 12 cases in this compilation carry an outcome direction of "Outcome not specified in source," indicating that the source corpus captured the judgments at the preview/procedural stage and the dispositive operative portion is not available within the indexed preview. Researchers should access full-text judgments from the court's official portal or indiankanoon.org to ascertain the final relief granted or refused.

How to use this compilation

This compilation functions as a structured entry point for litigation research and not as a substitute for reading the full text of each judgment. Each case entry above provides the docket-level identifiers (bench, date, sections, CNR number where visible in the preview) sufficient to locate the complete order on indiankanoon.org, the official High Court portals, or through subscription-based legal databases. Researchers should retrieve the full judgment before drawing conclusions about the operative ratio, the relief granted or refused, and any conditions attached to the order.

Given that all 12 entries in this compilation report "Outcome not specified in source," it is essential to verify whether any of the orders have been stayed, reversed, or modified by a higher court subsequent to the date of the ruling. Customs matters in particular may be subject to further appeals to the Supreme Court or remands to the CESTAT; BNS anticipatory bail orders are typically interim in nature and may be superseded by regular bail orders or revoked at a later stage. Additionally, researchers should check for any relevant CBDT circulars, CBIC instructions, or Board clarifications that may bear on the statutory provisions engaged in these cases.

Section 108 as a numeral spans multiple statutes in this compilation — the Customs Act, 1962; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; and the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (via the property tax case). Any cross-referencing of these rulings in legal submissions or research memoranda should clearly identify the parent statute in each instance to avoid interpretive ambiguity. The substantive law applicable to each cluster of cases is materially different, and patterns observed in the Customs Act cluster have no bearing on the BNS or municipal law clusters.

Source

All cases listed above are drawn from the TaxNoticeAI structured legal corpus (16,101 Indian tax judgments, CBIC circulars, ITAT rulings, AAR rulings, GSTAT rulings), sourced from indiankanoon.org and official court portals.

Section 108 Customs Act & BNS: 12 High Court Rulings (2026)