M/S. B.K. Construction And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Held
The Court acknowledged a disputed question of fact regarding the service of the adjudication order dated 15th February, 2017. To ensure the ends of justice and without prejudice to the Revenue, the Court directed the concerned respondents to serve a certified copy of the adjudication order dated 15th February, 2017, to the petitioners within seven days. The petitioners were granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Forum based on this certified copy within one month from its receipt. The Court explicitly clarified that it had not adjudicated on the merits of the original adjudication order. Any appeal filed would be adjudicated by the Appellate Authority strictly in accordance with law. The ratio decidendi is that in cases of disputed service of a crucial order, and where a party seeks to avail a statutory remedy, the Court may direct re-service to ensure fairness, without commenting on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Facts
The petitioners, M/s. B.K. Construction & Anr., filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking, among other prayers, a certified copy of an order dated 15th February, 2017. The petitioners claimed they had not received this order, which was necessary for them to file an appeal. The respondents, represented by Mr. Banerjee, argued that based on office records, the order was posted and, as the postal material had not returned, it should be presumed delivered. This created a disputed question of fact regarding the service of the order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners have been duly served with the adjudication order dated 15th February, 2017, a question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of service of notice under relevant GST/CGST provisions. Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they had not received the adjudication order dated 15th February, 2017, and therefore, were unable to avail their statutory remedy of appeal. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Revenue) contended that the order was posted and, based on the non-return of the postal material, it should be presumed to have been delivered to the petitioners, as per postal department norms.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2022 ks WPA 1343 of 2022 sl. 20 M/s. B.K. Construction & Anr.
Vs The Union of India & Ors.
Ms. Reshmi Ghosh, Mr. Tarun Chatterjee, Mr. Soumya Sankar Chini … For the Petitioners.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Ms. Ekta Sinha … For the Customs C. Ex & S.Tax,CGST & CX.
Ms. Oisani Mukherjee … For the UOI.
Heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties.
In this writ petition, petitioners have made several prayers but one innocuous prayer made in prayer (c) to the writ petition, I am allowing for the ends of justice, which is prayer for furnishing a certified copy of the order dated 15th February, 2017 to the petitioners for the purpose of filing appeal since it is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have not received the same and Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents on the basis of office record, which has been produced in Court, tries to prove that the aforesaid order dated 15th February, 2017 was posted and submits that since the posting material has not come back
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 Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.