M/S Rimjhim Ispat Limited Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr Bhaskar Bajpayi vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Held

The High Court modified its earlier order dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P.(T) No. 4574 of 2021. The Court directed the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad, to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner. This reconsideration is to be based on the memo of appeal that was submitted manually. The Court emphasized that the decision on the appeal should not be influenced by the earlier order of rejection, as that rejection was solely on the ground that the appeal was not filed in the online mode. All other conditions stipulated in the order dated 01.05.2023 remain unchanged. The application for modification was disposed of with this modification.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Rimjhim Ispat Ltd., filed a writ application (W.P.(T) No. 4574 of 2021) challenging an order. This writ application was disposed of on 01.05.2023 with a direction to the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal based on a manually submitted memo of appeal, which was stated to be lying dormant. The petitioner then filed the present application (C.M.P. No. 676 of 2023) seeking modification of the order dated 01.05.2023. The petitioner claimed they were unaware of the appeal's disposal during the pendency of the writ application because an email notification was not received. The revenue stated they also had no instruction regarding the appeal's disposal. It appears the appeal was initially disposed of on 07.12.2021 on the ground of not being filed online.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 01.05.2023 passed in W.P.(T) No. 4574 of 2021, directing the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal on the basis of a manually submitted memo of appeal, requires modification, considering the appeal was purportedly dismissed prior to this order on the ground of not being filed online. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the appeal's disposal during the pendency of the writ application because the email notification was not received in their inbox. They sought modification of the previous order to ensure their appeal is reconsidered on merits. Revenue's contention: The respondent revenue authority stated that they also had no instruction regarding the disposal of the appeal during the pendency of the writ application. They acknowledged that the appeal was disposed of on the ground of not being filed online.