2023 (8) TMI 365 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - HELD THAT - The Impugned Order is not a speaking order. It is therefore liable to be set quash and the case is liable to be remitted back to the second respondent to pass a speaking order on merits within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the quashing of an Impugned Order in Original, violation of principles of natural justice, communication of orders, and the requirement of a speaking order.

Quashing of Impugned Order:
The petitioner had challenged the Impugned Order in Original No.84139 of 2021 dated 27.04.2021, on the grounds that it was not reasoned. The petitioner contended that despite providing necessary documents, the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought the quashing of the Impugned Order based on these grounds.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the Impugned Order penalized them without following the principles of natural justice. They highlighted that they had provided the required Negative Statement certified by their Chartered Accountant, as well as other necessary certificates. The petitioner claimed that legitimate export benefits were granted, and hence, the order was unjust. The petitioner prayed for the quashing of the Impugned Order based on this violation.

Communication of Orders:
The respondents contended that the Impugned Order was duly communicated to the petitioner at the registered address maintained by the Customs Department. They argued that the petitioner cannot claim non-communication of the order. Additionally, it was pointed out that the petitioner did not respond to the Show Cause Notice or appear for the specified personal hearing dates. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner failed to comply with the communication and hearing processes.

Requirement of a Speaking Order:
The Court observed that the Impugned Order lacked reasoning and detail. It was noted that the order did not consider the petitioner's response to the Show Cause Notice. The Court directed the matter to be remitted back to the second respondent to pass a speaking order within a specified period. The petitioner was instructed to provide the necessary certificates to substantiate their claims. The judgment concluded with the disposal of the writ petition and closure of connected miscellaneous proceedings.