2019 (5) TMI 1816 - HC - Customs

Principles of Natural Justice - impugned order decided against the assessee ex parte - it is argued that the respondents were unaware of the revision petition filed by the petitioner and therefore if two revision petitions have not been decided together they cannot be blamed for the same - HELD THAT - Though the correct address of the petitioner has been given in first page in the order passed in appeal by the appellate authority but on the last page of the said order the old address of the petitioner has been mentioned. Thus it appears that the notices of revision petition if at all issued were not sent on the correct address of the petitioner. Another important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has also challenged the same order passed by the Commissioner Customs Central Excise (Appeals) Jaipur dated 23-2-2015 before the same revisional authority. This is substantiated from the notice of hearing received by the communication dated 13-12-2017 received by the petitioner informing that his revision petition has been accepted and listed wherein on the top of the said letter reference number was mentioned - The revisional authority was therefore required to decide both the revision petitions together after notice to petitioner on his correct address. Matter remanded back to the revisional authority for clubbing the revision Petitions filed by the assessee - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by revisional authority, Correct address for communication, Clubbing of revision petitions

Analysis:
The writ petition was filed by a non-resident Indian residing in Dubai, challenging an order passed by the revisional authority, the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, dated 13-4-2018. The petitioner's counsel argued that the revision petition was decided ex parte against the assessee, as no one appeared for the applicant or respondent during the scheduled personal hearings. The petitioner's correct address was not used for communication, leading to a lack of proper notice. The counsel contended that both the petitioner and revenue had challenged the same order separately, and the revisional authority should have decided both petitions together. The petitioner had submitted a communication with the correct address to the revisional authority, emphasizing the importance of proper communication in legal proceedings.

The respondent's counsel argued that the petitioner was aware of the pending revision petition, as evidenced by a previous application submitted by him. However, it was highlighted that the respondents were unaware of the petitioner's revision petition, and therefore, the blame could not be placed on them for the separate decisions. The High Court noted discrepancies in the communication of the correct address in the order passed by the appellate authority, which led to notices not being sent to the correct address of the petitioner. It was emphasized that when both the assessee and revenue challenge different parts of the same order, it is crucial to decide the cross-appeals or cross-revisions together to avoid conflicting findings and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved.

The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, set aside the order passed by the revisional authority and directed the matter to be remitted back for clubbing the revision petitions filed by the assessee and the Department together. The court stressed the importance of providing due notice to the petitioner on his correct address for a fair and just decision-making process. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the necessity of addressing procedural irregularities to uphold the principles of natural justice and fair adjudication.