2018 (9) TMI 520 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay in filing appeal - principles of Natural Justice - Held that - A delinquent in a proceedings before the adjudicating authority is entitled to a right of hearing. In the present case, the petitioner was afforded a right of hearing. The petitioner, however, wanted deferment of the first date of hearing on medical conditions - here the petitioner consists of more than one natural person. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the so-called medical condition of one of the partners to ask for repeated adjournments. Taking a sympathetic view on the subject, it would be appropriate to quash the impugned order on the ground of the same being vitiated by breach of the principles of natural justice, as it does not deal with the request for adjournment on their second date of hearing - the impugned order is quashed to the extent of the petitioner only - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order in original on grounds of breach of natural justice

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Calcutta pertains to a writ petition challenging an order in original dated June 29, 2018, on the grounds of breach of natural justice. The petitioner, a partnership firm, contended that the order was vitiated due to the adjudicating authority's failure to consider a request for adjournment on the second occasion, despite the petitioner being represented by a partner facing medical conditions. The Customs authorities argued that the petitioners were attempting to delay the proceedings. The court noted that while the petitioner was granted one adjournment, the adjudicating authority did not address the second application for adjournment in the impugned order, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.

The court emphasized that a delinquent in proceedings before the adjudicating authority is entitled to a right of hearing. In this case, the petitioner, comprising multiple natural persons, requested a deferment of the first hearing date due to medical conditions affecting one partner. Despite one adjournment being granted, the adjudicating authority did not address the second adjournment request in the final order. The court, taking a sympathetic view, decided to quash the impugned order solely concerning the petitioner, as it failed to consider the second adjournment request, thereby breaching natural justice principles. The adjudicating authority was directed to continue the proceedings from the stage reached on June 26, 2018, and dispose of them within six weeks, with the option to proceed on a day-to-day basis if necessary. The petitioner was instructed to ensure proper representation in the proceedings without citing medical conditions as a reason for adjournment.

The court clarified that the impugned order was quashed only concerning the petitioner, allowing the adjudicating authority to continue the proceedings in accordance with the law. The judgment, while disposing of W.P. No. 420 of 2018, did not impose any costs on the parties and kept all points raised during the case open for further consideration.