M/S. Periyar Chemicals Limited vs. Commissioner (Appeals)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Periyar Chemicals Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order (Ext.P4) passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and a demand (Ext.P5). Ext.P4 allowed an appeal filed by the Department against certain benefits granted to the petitioner in an earlier order (Ext.P1). The petitioner contended that they were never served with a copy of the Department's appeal memorandum. They appeared for a hearing based on a notice (Ext.P3) believing it pertained to their own appeal (Ext.P2) against Ext.P1, not the Department's appeal. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit stating the appeal memorandum was despatched, producing a covering letter and despatch register extract (Ext.R1(a)). However, the Court found these documents not conclusive proof of despatch and receipt, especially as there was no acknowledgment from the petitioner. The petitioner's own appeal was still pending.

Held

The Court held that the documents produced by the respondents (Exts.R1 and R1(a)), namely the covering letter and the despatch register extract, were not conclusive proof that the copy of the appeal memorandum was sent to the petitioner and that the petitioner received it. The Court noted the absence of any acknowledgment of receipt from the petitioner. Given that the petitioner's own appeal against the original order was still pending, and that both the petitioner and the Department had preferred appeals against the same order, the Court found it appropriate for both appeals to be heard together. To serve the interest of justice, the Court set aside the order Ext.P4 and remitted the matter back to the first respondent (Commissioner (Appeals)) for reconsideration. The Court directed that a copy of the Department's appeal memorandum must be served on the petitioner, and both appeals should be heard and disposed of together at the earliest.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with a copy of the appeal memorandum filed by the Department, as required by law? (Question of fact and law, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were not served with a copy of the Department's appeal memorandum. They appeared for a hearing based on a notice (Ext.P3) under the mistaken impression that it related to their own appeal (Ext.P2) against the original order (Ext.P1), not the Department's appeal against the same order. They relied on the lack of acknowledgment of receipt. Revenue's contention: The respondents (Revenue) contended that the appeal memorandum had been despatched to the petitioner. They produced a covering letter dated 01.04.2019 and an extract from the despatch register (Ext.R1(a)) as proof of despatch. They argued that the entries in the despatch register indicated that the document was sent.