M/S. Mizoram Ispat Industries vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 Ors.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to a certified copy of the Adjudication Order dated December 28, 2017. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's representation that they were unaware of the order until receiving a demand letter and that their subsequent request for a certified copy had not been fulfilled. The Court acknowledged the respondent's submission that necessary steps would be taken to furnish the copy. The ratio decidendi is that a party aggrieved by an order, even if initially unaware of it, has a right to obtain a certified copy to understand the basis of the demand and to pursue further legal remedies. The operative direction was to furnish the certified copy of the Adjudication Order to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Mizoram Ispat Industries, a partnership firm, received a letter dated July 19, 2018, from the Deputy Commissioner, Goods and Services Tax, Aizawl Division. This letter demanded the deposit of Central Excise Duty, penalty, and interest, arising from an Adjudication Order dated December 28, 2017. The petitioner claimed surprise, stating they had not been previously intimated about this demand or the adjudication order. Subsequently, on July 31, 2018, the petitioner applied for a certified copy of the Adjudication Order but had not received it. The respondent authorities acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the non-receipt of the certified copy.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the Adjudication Order dated December 28, 2017, despite the passage of time since its issuance? The petitioner argued that they were not informed about the Adjudication Order and subsequent demand, and therefore, were unaware of its existence until receiving the demand letter. They contended that their representation for a certified copy was made promptly after learning of the order, and its non-receipt was a significant procedural impediment. The petitioner relied on the general right to access official documents. The respondents did not record any specific arguments against providing the certified copy, but their counsel agreed to take necessary steps to furnish it.
Sections Cited
Not specified
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010012152019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C) 817/2019 1:M/S. MIZORAM ISPAT INDUSTRIES A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REGD. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 AND HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT PRAKASH TOWER, G.S.ROAD OPP. DONA COMPLEX, DIST- KAMRUP,, GHY ASSAM AND FACTORY AT EPIP, PLOT NO. 28, LENGTE, SAIRANG, P.O. MIZORAM- 796410, REP. BY SRI MUKESH AGARWALLA
VERSUS 1:UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPTT. OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2:THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPTT. OF REVENUE) NEW DELHI 3:THE COMMISSIONER GST (EARLIER COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX) SHILLONG RANGE SHILLONG 4:THE DY. COMMISSIONER GST/ EARLIER DY. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AIZWAL DIVISION 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AIZAWL RANGE MIZORA
Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M L GOPE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CENTRAL EXCISE
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 Gauhati High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.