M/S Maa Mansa Enterprises PVT Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Maa Mansa Enterprises Pvt Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Panchkula. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected solely on the ground that a self-certified copy of the order dated 28.03.2023, which was the subject of the appeal, was not provided. The petitioner contended that this failure was a curable defect and should not lead to the dismissal of the appeal. The respondents, Union of India and others, acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous decision of a coordinate bench.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 18.09.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Panchkula. The Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal on the ground of non-submission of a self-certified copy of the order was not sustainable. The Court reasoned that such a failure constitutes a curable defect, and an opportunity should be granted to rectify it. The ratio decidendi is that procedural defects, such as the absence of a self-certified copy, should not lead to the outright dismissal of an appeal if the defect can be cured, and the substantive merits of the case are yet to be examined. The Court directed that if the petitioner files a self-certified copy of the order before the Appellate Authority within fifteen days, the appeal shall be restored and decided on merits expeditiously, preferably within two months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of an appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) solely on the ground of failure to provide a self-certified copy of the impugned order is legally sustainable, particularly when such failure can be considered a curable defect? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the failure to furnish a self-certified copy of the impugned order should be treated as a defect, and an opportunity should have been provided to rectify it. The appeal should not have been dismissed on this ground alone. The petitioner relied on the order dated 27.11.2024 passed in CWP-31911-2024, which dealt with an identical issue. Respondents' arguments: The respondents' counsel fairly stated that the matter was covered in favour of the petitioner in view of the decision dated 27.11.2024 in CWP-31911-2024, where a coordinate bench had recorded its opinion.