AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal Authority has dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner, principally, on the ground that the prayer made by the petitioner for condonation of delay was not substantiated, having regard to the material placed on record before him. 3. We had heard the matter briefly when the writ petition was listed before us for the first time on 12.05.2022. At that juncture, the respondent/revenue was represented by Mr Satish Aggarwal. 3.1 Having regard to the record available with us at that juncture and the arguments advanced by the counsels, including the counsel for the petitioner - Mr Prem Ranjan Kumar, the following was noted: "2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 07.04.2022, passed by Additional Secretary....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h of the Order-in-Appeal dated 06.09.2017 to the petitioner." 4. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 25.07.2022, when Mr Akshay Amritanshu, learned senior standing counsel, appeared on behalf of the respondent/revenue. He informed us that a counter-affidavit had been filed in the matter. Since the counter-affidavit was not on record, the matter was adjourned for today i.e., 22.09.2022. 4.1 However, on that date i.e., on 25.07.2022, Mr Amritanshu had inter alia, placed before us a copy of the letter dated 20.07.2022, along with a photocopy of the speed post receipt that bore the date 16.09.2017. This receipt also indicated the time, which was noted as 11.20 A.M. 4.2. This aspect is brought to the fore by us, as the principal issue whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner discovered that Mr S.K. Pahwa had expired, that he made enquiries with the officers of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) which resulted, as noticed above, in the order-in-appeal being served on the petitioner under the cover of the letter dated 13.10.2020. 7.2. On the other hand, Mr Amritanshu says, if nothing else, the petitioner was careless in not following up with his advocate as to the fate of the appeal preferred by him against the adjudication order. 8. We may note that insofar as service of orders is concerned, the statute i.e., the Act provides the mode and the manner in which orders are required to be served. In this context Section 153 of the Act is relevant. The relevant portion of Section 153 is extracted hereafter: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be made to the person to whom the order, decision, summon or notice or communication is issued or to his authorised representative, if any, albeit, at his last known place of business or residence. 9.2 Sub-section (2) of Section 153 provides that every order, decision, summon, notice or communication is deemed as having been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed or uploaded in the manner provided in sub-section (1). 9.3 Likewise, sub-section (3) of Section 153 provides that when such order, decision, summon, notice or communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee on the expiry of the period normally taken by such post i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....had not been retained; qua this aspect as well, we have not received a satisfactory answer. 10.4. Therefore, insofar as speed post is concerned, the tracking report would be crucial as it would establish clearly as to whether or not the order-in-appeal was served upon the petitioner. As noted above, the respondent/revenue have not been able to place before us the tracking report. Therefore, there is a semblance of doubt as to whether the order-in-appeal was actually served upon the petitioner. 11. Although, in a sense, Mr Amritanshu is right that the petitioner should have been more proactive in ascertaining as to whether the appellate authority had disposed of the appeal, but that, by itself, in our view, cannot be the reason to hold tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-serving document, contains the complete address of the appellant, the photocopy of the postal receipt does not give the complete address of the appellant. The address given on the receipt reads as follows: "Krishna Nagar PIN: 110051." 14.1. It does not advert to the building number or the street number. This is apart from the fact that the respondent/revenue has been unable to produce the original receipt. 15. It would also have to be borne in mind that the impugned order has not been passed by the Revisional Authority on merits. Clearly, it takes away from the petitioner the right of having the tenability of the order-in-appeal being tested, on merits, by the Revisional Authority, and if we were to accept the presumption created by se....