9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der dated 25 May 20188 without hearing the petitioner. Thus both the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice. The process of taking decisions having civil consequences include in it certain requirements such as an opportunity to party to put up its case. This is absent in respect of both the orders. Therefore we exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by not relegating the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of this case, to the remedy of appeal provided under the Act. Petition allowed. - WRIT PETITION NO. 8529 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 14-8-2019 - M.S. SANKLECHA AND NITIN JAMDAR, JJ. Mr. Shriram Shridharan with Mr. Kartik W. i/b. PDS Legal for the Petitioner. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order dated 18 November 2016 in appeal was an order on merits. Thus no rectification application is maintainable for recall. This order was again passed without hearing the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that it had no notice of any hearing being granted by the Tribunal before passing the final order dated 18 November 2016 in an appeal filed by the Revenue. This is for the reason that the hearing notice was served by the registry of the Tribunal upon the petitioner on its old address and therefore the petitioner had no notice of hearing. The petitioner learnt about the impugned order dated 18 November 2016 only when the recovery notice, consequent to the above order was served upon the petitioner at its new addre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merits and, therefore, no rectification of the said order could be granted. In this view of the matter, at no stage of the appellate proceedings before the Tribunal the petitioner was heard before the impugned orders were passed. It is pertinent to note that this nonattendance on the part of the petitioner was only because the petitioner did not receive the hearing notice and not because of any deliberate default and/or design on the part of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Jetly, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 25 May 2018 on rectification application cannot be found fault with, as the order being sought to be recalled was an order dated 18 November 2016 on merits. So far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice of the hearing was not served at the existing address of the petitioner by the Registry leading to order dated 25 May 20188 without hearing the petitioner. Thus we find that both the impugned orders dated 18 November 2016 and 25 May 2018 of the Tribunal are in breach of principles of natural justice. The process of taking decisions having civil consequences include in it certain requirements such as an opportunity to party to put up its case. This is absent in respect of both the orders. Therefore we exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by not relegating the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of this case, to the remedy of appeal provided under the Act. 7. In the above view, we set asid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
