Touhid Mondal vs. Chief Commissioner Of Customs And Ors

Facts

The appellant, Touhid Mondal, is an intra-Court appellant challenging a High Court order dated April 13, 2023, which dismissed his writ petition. The writ petition was filed alleging that an order in original was passed by respondent authorities on April 29, 2022, demanding service tax. The original writ court initially considered granting liberty to file a statutory appeal, but later dismissed the petition, stating incorrect facts were presented. The revenue contended that the order in original was served at the proprietor's address, but the appellant refused to accept it via speed post. The appellant had participated in proceedings after a show-cause notice was personally served on November 17, 2021. A sum of Rs. 18 lakhs had already been recovered by bank attachment.

Held

The Court, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, decided to grant the appellant liberty to file a statutory appeal. The Court reasoned that despite the dismissal of the writ petition and the revenue's arguments regarding service and diligence, it was in the interest of justice to allow the appellant to pursue the statutory remedy. The Court directed the proprietor to personally appear before the Assistant Commissioner, Central GST and Central Excise, Haldia Commissionerate within three days of receiving the order's copy. Upon appearance, a true copy of the order in original would be handed over, enabling the appellant to file a statutory appeal. This appeal is to be received and considered on merits without rejection on grounds of limitation. The pre-deposit amount for the appeal will be adjusted from the Rs. 18 lakhs already recovered. The appeal must be filed within one week of receiving the order's true copy. The Court explicitly stated that this direction shall not be treated as a precedent. Remarks made against the learned counsel in the writ petition order were expunged.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant should be granted liberty to file a statutory appeal against the order in original dated April 29, 2022, despite the dismissal of the writ petition on grounds of incorrect facts being presented and alleged refusal to accept service. Petitioner's contention: The appellant, through his counsel, argued for the grant of liberty to file a statutory appeal, emphasizing the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant sought to overcome the dismissal of the writ petition and the revenue's contention regarding service of the order in original. Revenue's contention: The respondent CGST authority argued that the order in original was duly served at the proprietor's address and that the appellant refused to accept it. They contended that the appellant had not been diligent and that the writ court was misled regarding the facts. They also highlighted that a significant amount had already been recovered.