TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 111
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1962 [in short, the 'Act']. 2. The Revisional 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 th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent, says he will produce the record on the next date of hearing; in particular, the record concerning the dispatch 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 in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... counsel, Mr S.K. Pahwa, had been dismissed in and about October, 2020. 7.1 Mr Kumar, thus, contends that it is only when the petitioner 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an be effected. Inter alia, the said clause provides that service is required to be effected via registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due. The delivery is required 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, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Mr Amritanshu. 10.3. Furthermore, only a photocopy of the postal receipt has been placed on record. It is not understood, if the photocopy was retained, why the original of the said document 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 rig....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of the provision made in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153, it would render the latter provision completely otiose. 14. Furthermore, in this case, while the dispatch register, which is a self-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 ....