Jaipur Texweaving Park Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner is required to file an application seeking condonation of delay, explaining the reasons for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time, and also accounting for the time consumed in pursuing the present writ petition. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider this application, and if persuaded, condone the delay and decide the appeal on its merits. The 50% of the demanded sum already deposited by the petitioner shall abide by the final decision of the appeal by the Appellate Authority. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided, but rather provided a procedural path for the petitioner to pursue their substantive grievance.

Facts

The petitioner, Jaipur Texweaving Park Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a recovery notice dated May 23, 2018, issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods and Service Tax, Ajmer, for a total sum of Rs. 5,78,175/- (Rs. 66,152/- and Rs. 5,12,023/-). The petitioner also sought a certified copy of the order-in-original dated February 13, 2017, to enable them to file an appeal. The respondents contended that the order-in-original was sent to the petitioner via registered post, with proof of delivery. The Court had previously directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the demanded sum, which they have done. The respondents argued that the writ petition should not be entertained directly, as an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is available.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the order-in-original dated February 13, 2017, to pursue their statutory remedy of appeal? (Question of law) 2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court, given the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contentions: The petitioner sought the certified copy of the order-in-original to avail the remedy of appeal. The petition was filed challenging the recovery notice and seeking directions for the supply of the order-in-original. Respondents' Contentions: The respondents argued that the order-in-original was already sent to the petitioner, evidenced by postal delivery proof. They contended that the writ petition ought not to be directly entertained as the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). They undertook to supply an additional copy of the order-in-original within a week.