Xotik Frujus Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors
Held
The Court held that the principles of natural justice and fair play were not breached. The Petitioner's contention that notices were not received was rejected, particularly in light of their admission of receiving the notice for the 22 July 2024 hearing via email. The Court found that the Petitioner's claim of inadvertently missing that notice did not absolve them of responsibility, as authorities are not expected to send repeated notices indefinitely. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that the Petitioner made false statements or was not candid before the Court, attempting to mislead by alleging a failure of natural justice when the record indicated otherwise. The self-serving denials lacked credibility. The Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of no failure of natural justice and the Petitioner's lack of candor, imposing costs of Rupees One Lakh payable to KEM Hospital.
Facts
The Petitioner, Xotik Frujus Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22 August 2024, alleging a violation of principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of hearing notices. The Petitioner initially claimed no notices were served. However, upon inquiry by the Court, it was revealed that the Petitioner had admitted in their petition (Ground A.1) to receiving a notice via email for a hearing on 22 July 2024, which they claimed to have 'inadvertently and mistakenly missed'. The Respondent produced evidence, including an email dated 31 July 2024 for a hearing on 5 August 2024 sent to the same email ID, and a notice dated 2 May 2024 for a hearing on 10 July 2024, which was dispatched by post on 27 June 2024.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner was denied principles of natural justice due to non-receipt of hearing notices, as contended by the Petitioner? 2. Whether the Petitioner made false statements or was not candid before the Court, as alleged by the Respondent? The Petitioner argued that notices for hearings on 10.07.2024 and 05.08.2024 were never received, and while a notice for 22.07.2024 was received, it was inadvertently missed. They contended that no further notices were provided, leading to a violation of natural justice and that they should not be relegated to the alternate remedy of appeal. The Respondent argued, based on the Petitioner's own admission in Ground A.1 of the petition and documentary evidence (email dated 31 July 2024 and postal dispatch record for notice dated 2 May 2024), that the Petitioner had received notices and was aware of the hearings. The Respondent contended that the Petitioner's claim of non-receipt was false and that fairness is not a one-way street.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Revati 1 913.WP.17393.24.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17393 OF 2024 Xotik Frujus Private Limited .. Petitioner Versus Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Bharat Raichandani a/w Mr. Jasmine Dixit i/b UBR Legal advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Karan Adik a/w Mrs. Sangeeta Yadav for respondents. _______________________________________________________________
CORAM : M. S. Sonak & Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATE : 3 December 2024 P.C.:-
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 22 August 2024 on the grounds of alleged violation of principles of natural justice.
Yesterday, when the matter was heard, Mr Raichandani, no doubt, based on instructions of the petitioner, submitted that the notices of hearing were not served upon the petitioner, and, therefore, this was a case of gross violation of principles of natural justice. He submitted that in such a situation, the petitioner should no
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.