TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the review petition challenging service of the Show Cause Notice by email and seeking recall of the order dated 27.08.2024 is maintainable on merits and whether delay in filing the review petition is excusable.
Analysis: The Court examined (i) whether service of the Show Cause Notice by email to the address given by the petitioner satisfied statutory requirements under the Customs Act and whether non-compliance with the Government's e-mail Policy invalidated service; (ii) the authenticity and admissibility of electronic records in support of service including relevance of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act; and (iii) whether the review petition was barred by inordinate delay and whether sufficient reasons for delay were furnished. The Court noted that the email address used for service was the petitioner's own address recorded in her statement and that the statutory amendment permitting email service does not restrict service to government-provided email services; therefore the Government e-mail Policy does not override the statutory provision. The Court also found that the petitioner had earlier denied the email but subsequently accepted it; the petitioner's own electronic screenshot evidence was unreliable and not properly supported under Section 65B. On limitation, the Court found a delay of 200 days in filing the review petition and was not satisfied with the reasons offered for the delay.
Conclusion: The review petition is dismissed on both delay and merits. The challenge to service by email fails and the petitioner has not established grounds warranting recall or review of the order dated 27.08.2024.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
