M/S. Mohd. Nafisuddin vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no substance in the petitioner's claims. The Court observed that the petitioner's conduct was suspect, noting that while claiming non-receipt of the speed post article containing the order, the petitioner had provided details of the speed post number, dispatch date, and even obtained a copy of the postal department's receipt book. The Court found the petitioner's assertion of learning about the order from "reliable sources" to be untenable. It concluded that the speed post was apparently delivered to the petitioner, and the claim of non-receipt by the petitioner or his authorized agent was a fabricated story to obtain a fresh copy and file an appeal that would be grossly barred by limitation. The Court stated that if the petitioner required a certified copy, they could apply for it in the prescribed manner, and the respondents could issue it in accordance with the law. No specific issue was left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Mohd. Nafisuddin, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the respondents to serve a certified copy of an order in original dated January 28, 2022. The petitioner had been issued a show cause notice on October 17, 2019, replied to it, and appeared for a personal hearing. The petitioner claimed that the adjudication order, passed on January 28, 2022, was sent by speed post but delivered on February 5, 2022, to one Prabhat, who was neither the petitioner nor his authorized agent. The petitioner argued this service was not in accordance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax. The respondents contended that the order was sent by speed post to the petitioner's admitted address and delivered, and subsequent communications were also received at the same address. They argued that issuing a copy would imply accepting the petitioner's plea of non-receipt, which would render an appeal time-barred.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of the order in original dated January 28, 2022, upon the petitioner was in compliance with Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as made applicable to service tax, considering it was allegedly delivered to a person other than the petitioner or his authorized agent? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the service was invalid as the order was delivered to an unauthorized person, Prabhat, and not to the petitioner or his authorized agent, thus failing to meet the requirements of Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They sought a direction to serve a certified copy of the order to enable them to challenge its validity. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents contended that the order was dispatched by speed post to the petitioner's admitted address and delivered there. They argued that the petitioner's claim of non-receipt by an authorized person was not tenable, especially since subsequent communications were received at the same address. They further argued that issuing a fresh copy would prejudice their case by acknowledging the petitioner's plea of non-receipt, which would lead to a time-barred appeal.