Gel Metaliks PVT. LTD. vs. Joint Commissioner CGST And Central Excise Haldia Commissionerate And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Gel Metaliks Pvt. Ltd., filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the High Court in a writ petition. The writ petition had challenged an adjudication order, the primary ground being that this order was never served on the appellant. The Department, represented by its advocates, presented documents to the learned Single Bench demonstrating that the adjudication order had indeed been served on the appellant. Consequently, the learned Single Bench dismissed the writ petition.

Held

The Court found no error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench, as the Department had successfully produced documents to establish that the adjudication order was served on the appellant. However, to ensure the appellant was not left without recourse, the Court directed the concerned authority to serve one more copy of the adjudication order on the appellant by speed post. Upon receipt of this copy, the appellant would be at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with the law. The appeal was disposed of with these directions.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Bench erred in dismissing the writ petition when the appellant contended that the adjudication order was not served on it? Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued that the adjudication order was not served on them, which was the basis for their writ petition challenging the order. They sought a remedy against this alleged non-service. Contentions of the Revenue (CGST, Haldia Commissionerate): The Department contended that they had produced documents before the learned Single Bench which established that the adjudication order was, in fact, served on the appellant. They relied on these documents to support their argument that the appellant's claim of non-service was unfounded.