#service of notice

The Bombay High Court held that a writ petition contesting a gratuity award cannot proceed because the petitioners failed to file an appeal within the 120-day period prescribed by Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, and it affirmed the validity of the notice served on the Trust’s administrative manager. This underscores that parties must strictly observe the statutory limitation to seek relief under the PG Act, affecting employers and former employees alike.

CESTAT rules that sending tax orders via speed post without confirmed delivery proof fails to satisfy statutory service requirements under Section 37C, rendering the order ineffective for limitation purposes. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers and revenue authorities alike, mandating verifiable receipt for any official communication that triggers statutory deadlines.

The ITAT Delhi has ruled that sending tax notices to an outdated address, even when the assessee updated their details on the Income Tax Portal and Form 35, amounts to sufficient cause for condoning delay in filing appeals. This sets a critical precedent for taxpayers with mobility or health constraints, reinforcing that procedural fairness must override technical non-compliance when the tax department fails to use verified digital records.

NCLAT rules that a financial creditor’s interest default exceeding ₹1 crore constitutes a valid default under Section 7 of the IBC, even if the corporate debtor breached a One Time Settlement (OTS). The ruling clarifies that service of notice via MCA-registered email suffices for CIRP initiation, impacting creditors’ rights and insolvency proceedings.

ITAT Bangalore holds that mere uploading of an assessment order on the ITBA portal does not meet the service requirements under Section 282 of the Income Tax Act. The ruling mandates physical or legally recognized service for procedural compliance, impacting tax assessees and revenue authorities in appeal timelines and adjudication.

The West Bengal State Consumer Commission has set aside an ex parte order against Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance for failing to serve notice, reinforcing that insurers cannot be penalized without a fair opportunity to defend. This ruling strengthens procedural safeguards for corporate respondents in consumer disputes and reaffirms natural justice as non-negotiable under the Consumer Protection Act.

The Securities Appellate Tribunal has ruled that SEBI cannot impose penalties without personally serving the show cause notice, invalidating reliance on email or postal alternatives when direct service is feasible. This sets a binding precedent for all SEBI adjudications, ensuring procedural fairness and protecting regulated entities from ex parte penalties based on defective notice.

Chhattisgarh High Court rules that appeals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act cannot be dismissed without proof of proper notice service. The court directed the Collector to rehear the matter on merits, reinforcing natural justice principles in eviction disputes involving senior citizens.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that GST adjudication notices must be served physically-not just electronically-after a taxpayer's registration is cancelled. Failure to do so violates natural justice principles under Section 75(4) of the U.P.G.S.T. Act, rendering the adjudication order void. The ruling mandates fresh proceedings with proper notice, impacting all GST assessees in Uttar Pradesh facing post-cancellation proceedings.

The Uttarakhand State Consumer Commission set aside an ex parte order against an automobile dealer because the complainant failed to prove service of notice, reinforcing that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in consumer disputes. This ruling protects businesses from adverse orders issued without due process, even when they fail to respond - making proper notice a mandatory precondition for any adjudication.

MP High Court quashes industrial plot cancellation order for violating Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules, which mandates a 60-day notice before cancellation. The court held that failure to prove service of notice vitiates the cancellation, reinforcing natural justice in administrative actions affecting land allotments.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that GST assessment orders uploaded only on the portal without direct SMS/email alerts violate principles of natural justice. The court set aside ex-parte orders and directed re-adjudication with proper service, emphasizing that digital uploads alone do not constitute valid notice under Section 169 of the GST Act. Taxpayers and authorities must ensure compliance with direct notification requirements to avoid legal challenges.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC must be granted liberally when service of notice is doubtful or unverified, emphasizing the regulatory - not punitive - intent of the provision. This protects defendants from irreversible harm in civil suits where procedural fairness is compromised by ambiguous service, especially in family disputes with conflicting claims of relationship.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that dismissing a suit for default due to incomplete service of notice denies parties their right to be heard, violating the foundational principle of natural justice. Courts must afford plaintiffs a reasonable opportunity to effect proper service before terminating proceedings, safeguarding access to justice in civil disputes.

The Kerala High Court set aside an ITAT order because the tribunal failed to serve a hearing notice after the appellant did not provide an email ID, despite a defect memo. This establishes that procedural fairness requires active effort to serve notice-even when technical failures occur-and mandates fresh hearings when notice is not reasonably delivered, affecting all income tax appellants relying on digital communication.