Kirloskar Brothers LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of Central GST And Central Excise And Anr

Held

The Court acknowledged that the adjudicating authority had passed an order on August 24, 2018. However, it noted the petitioner's submission, supported by postal evidence, that the order was not delivered due to an incomplete address. Taking a lenient view, the Court allowed the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings before the Appellate Authority within two weeks from the date of the order. The Court explicitly stated that the question of limitation would not be a bar for the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal. The writ petition was disposed of on this basis.

Facts

The petitioner, Kirloskar Brothers Ltd., filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the Commissioner of Central GST and Central Excise, Patna-1 (Respondent No. 1) to grant a personal hearing regarding pending adjudication. The petitioner also sought a reasoned order within a prescribed time limit after the personal hearing. The petitioner had previously obtained an order dated May 1, 2014, from the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 2). The respondent authority passed an order on August 24, 2018. However, the petitioner claimed they did not receive this order, supported by a postal certificate indicating non-delivery due to an incomplete address.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority (Respondent No. 1) in light of the order dated May 1, 2014, passed by the Appellate Tribunal (Respondent No. 2)? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a reasoned order within a prescribed time limit after the personal hearing, and proper communication of the adjudication status and the reasoned order? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that they were entitled to a personal hearing and a reasoned order, as directed by the Tribunal. They argued that the non-receipt of the order due to an incomplete address prevented them from pursuing further remedies, and therefore, they should be allowed to initiate proceedings before the Appellate Authority without limitation issues.