M/S Venu R K Infra (Jv) vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider the controversy regarding the date of communication of the best judgment order dated May 10, 2019. Section 107 of the CGST Act mandates that an appeal must be filed within three months from the date the decision or order is communicated, with a further condonable period of thirty days. The Appellate Authority's dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation grounds, without adequately addressing the conflicting dates of communication asserted by the petitioner (November 7, 2019) and the respondents (May 10/14, 2019), was found to be erroneous. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority did not consider the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner to justify their asserted date of communication. Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the Appellate Authority's board for reconsideration. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide on the limitation period by considering the circumstances asserted by both parties and also to decide on the merits of the case.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Venu R K Infra (JV), filed a writ petition challenging two orders: a best judgment assessment order dated May 10, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 62(1) of the CGST Act, and an order dated March 6, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6, which rejected the petitioner's appeal. The appeal was rejected on the grounds that it was filed beyond the condonable period. The Appellate Authority held that the best judgment order was served on the petitioner's registered email on May 10, 2019, and physically on May 14, 2019. The petitioner contended they did not receive the order via email and that the physical service on May 14, 2019, was on a site supervisor, not an authorized representative, and that they only became aware of the order on November 7, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, considering the disputed date of communication of the best judgment order dated May 10, 2019? The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred by not properly considering the date of communication of the best judgment order. They contended that service via registered email or web portal under Section 169(1)(c) or (d) does not create a deemed service unless actual receipt is established, unlike service under Section 169(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f). The petitioner claimed they did not receive the order via email and that physical service on May 14, 2019, was on a site supervisor, not an authorized person, and they only became aware of the order on November 7, 2019. They also pointed to the cancellation of their registration for non-filing of returns with 'Nil' tax dues as a reason for not anticipating a best judgment order. The respondents argued that the order was served physically on May 14, 2019, with a written acknowledgment, and therefore, the limitation period should be reckoned from that date.