9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 816 - HC - CustomsNon-communication of Order Original order was not served on petitioner Petitioner also made application under Right to Information Act, wherein it has been stated that despatch details were not available Admittedly, order has been passed on 30.12.2009 and petitioner was demanded to pay sum together with interest from 17.11.1995 Held that - respondent contended that order referred to which was allegedly communicated to petitioner, there is no proof for despatch of same and there is no acknowledgment on file Hence, accepting contention of petitioner, impugned order passed by first respondent is set aside Consequently, impugned recovery notice issued by second respondent also set aside Therefore petition disposed of.
Issues:
1. Non-service of original order on the petitioner. 2. Lack of proof for despatch of the order. 3. Setting aside the impugned order and recovery notice. 4. Direction to treat the xerox copy as original for appeal filing. Issue 1: Non-service of original order on the petitioner The petitioner claimed that the original order demanding payment was not served on him, despite the assertion of service. The petitioner also highlighted that despatch details were unavailable as per an application under the Right to Information Act. The order in question demanded a payment of &8377; 2,22,164/- along with interest from a specified date. The court acknowledged the petitioner's argument and set aside the impugned order passed on 30.12.2009. Issue 2: Lack of proof for despatch of the order The respondent's counsel argued that there was no evidence of despatch or acknowledgment of the order communicated to the petitioner. Given the lack of proof for the despatch of the order, the court accepted the petitioner's contention and proceeded to set aside the impugned order from Original No.948/2009-Gr-7 (ACC) dated 30.12.2009. Subsequently, the recovery notice issued by the second respondent was also set aside. Issue 3: Setting aside the impugned order and recovery notice In light of the lack of evidence regarding the despatch of the original order and the petitioner's claim of non-receipt, the court decided to set aside both the impugned order from 30.12.2009 and the recovery notice dated 22.11.2014/25.11.2014. This decision was made based on the acknowledgment of the petitioner's argument and the absence of concrete proof of service. Issue 4: Direction to treat the xerox copy as original for appeal filing As part of the judgment, the court directed the petitioner to consider the xerox copy of the order as the original document for the purpose of filing an appeal. The petitioner was instructed to initiate the appeal process within 15 days from the judgment date and to make a payment of 10% of the demanded amount along with accrued interest before filing the appeal. Failure to deposit the specified amount would result in the appeal not being entertained, and the impugned order would stand restored. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment from the Madras High Court addresses the issues raised by the petitioner regarding the non-service of the original order, the lack of proof for despatch, the decision to set aside the impugned order and recovery notice, and the directive to treat the xerox copy as the original for appeal purposes.
|
