M/S.Hotel Annamalai vs. The Commissioner Of Central
Held
The Court did not delve into the veracity of the petitioner's assertion of non-service or the respondents' counter-argument regarding acknowledgment. Instead, in the interest of justice, the Court directed the third respondent (Assistant Commissioner) to serve a fresh, duly signed copy of the impugned orders on the petitioner within one week of receiving a copy of the Court's order. The limitation period for filing an appeal would commence from the date of this fresh service. The Court explicitly avoided deciding the core issue of whether the original orders were properly served. The operative direction was to facilitate the filing of an appeal by ensuring proper service of the orders.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Hotel Annamalai International, filed two writ petitions challenging orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner (third respondent) on 15.11.2017 and 17.11.2017. The petitioner's primary contention was that they had not been served with the original orders. The respondents, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, disputed this claim and stated they could produce acknowledgment of service. The Court noted that an appeal would lie against the impugned orders before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) (first respondent). The writ petitions were filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the original orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, thereby initiating the limitation period for filing an appeal? (Question of fact). The petitioner argued that they had not received the original orders, which prevented them from filing an appeal within the prescribed time. They relied on the principle that a party cannot be prejudiced by the non-receipt of an order. The respondents contended that the petitioner had indeed been served with the original orders and offered to produce acknowledgment of service. They implicitly argued that the petitioner's claim of non-service was incorrect.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2018 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN W.P.(MD)Nos.5420 and 5421 of 2018 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5350 to 5353 of 2018 M/s.Hotel Annamalai International, Rep. by its Proprietor S.Jeyaraman, 120 Feet Road, Opp. To Mattuthavani Bus Stand, Madurai-625 007. ... Petitioner in both W.Ps. Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), C.R.Building, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. 2.The Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, O/o. the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. 3.The Assistant Commissioner, O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Service Tax and Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, Bibikulam, Maudrai-625 002. 4.The Superintendent of Central Tax, O/o. the Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, North Range, Central Revenue (Annexe) Buildings, No.4, Lal Bahadur Sasthri Road, Bibikulam, Madurai-625 002. ... Respondents in both W.Ps.
COMMON PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of
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 Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.