9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 767 - HC - Service TaxService of order - respondent claims that petitioner was already served with the said order on 22.12.2016 through postal department - Held that - I do not think that there will be any difficulty for the 3rd respondent to furnish such copy, however, without prejudice to the contention of either parties on the question of limitation, if an appeal is sought to be filed by the petitioner against the order in original - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues involved:
1. Petitioner aggrieved against the order of the 3rd respondent for refusing to furnish a copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. 2. Dispute regarding whether the order was served on the petitioner. 3. Court's decision on providing a copy of the order and addressing the issue of limitation for filing an appeal. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the order of the 3rd respondent, who refused to provide a copy of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner claimed that they were not served with the said order, leading to a dispute over the receipt of the order. 2. The Court refrained from delving into the question of whether the order was served on the petitioner, stating that such a matter should be addressed during an appeal before the Appellate Authority, especially if the appeal is filed with a delay. The focus was on the need for the 3rd respondent to furnish a copy of the order in question. 3. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to provide a copy of the order within two weeks, emphasizing that this directive does not exempt the petitioner from explaining any delay in filing an appeal. The judgment highlighted that the provision of the order copy is separate from the petitioner's obligation to address any delay in the appeal process, thereby concluding the case without imposing any costs. This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues raised in the judgment and the Court's decision regarding the dispute over the order copy and the related implications for the appeal process.
|
