Delta Goods Private Limited And Anr vs. The Union Of INDIA And Ors.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioners, Delta Goods Private Limited & Anr., filed a writ petition challenging the disposal of their appeal by the appellate authority. Initially, the grievance was that the appeal was disposed of without an opportunity of hearing. Subsequently, the petitioners argued that while they received a notice via email prior to the disposal, this mode of service lacked legal sanction as it was not uploaded on the portal. They relied on a notification dated March 30, 2022, purportedly amending Section 146 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017. The State, through its counsel, contended that the notification only amended a prior notification and did not affect Section 146. They further argued that Section 169 of the said Act provides for valid modes of service, including to an email address, and that the petitioners were duly served via email.
Held
The Court held that the notification dated March 30, 2022, did not amend Section 146 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, but rather amended a prior notification. The Court referred to Section 169 of the said Act, which outlines various recognized modes of service, including communication to a person's email address. It was found that the petitioners had indeed been served with notice via their email address. The Court observed that despite being notified of the hearing date, the petitioners failed to appear before the appellate authority. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioners had not made out a case for interference, as they could not shift the burden to the appellate authority by claiming inadequate notice due to the absence of portal upload when valid email service was effected and they chose not to appear. The Court found no scope for interference in the writ petition.
Key Issues
1. Whether the service of notice via email, without being uploaded on the portal, constitutes a valid mode of communication under the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, specifically concerning Section 146 and Section 169? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that a notification dated March 30, 2022, amended Section 146 of the said Act, and that service of notice must be uploaded on the portal to be legally valid. They contended that email communication alone, without portal upload, did not have the sanction of law. Revenue/State's contention: The State argued that the notification dated March 30, 2022, only amended a prior notification and did not amend Section 146 of the Act. They relied on Section 169 of the said Act, which permits service of notice, including to an email address, and stated that the petitioners were duly served via email. They also noted that the petitioners chose not to appear before the appellate authority despite being notified.
Sections Cited
Section 146, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
2024 Item No. AD 16 Saswata
W.P.A. 15504 of 2024 Delta Goods Private Limited & Anr. versus Union of India & Ors. Mr. Himangshu Kumar Ray Ms. Shiwani Shaw Mr. Subhasis Podder Mr. Amit Saha Mr. Piyas Chowdhury …For the petitioners Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. GP Mr. Md. T.M.Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. S. Sanyal Mr. D.Sahu Mr. Avra Majumder …For the State
Affidavit of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.
Originally, when the instant writ petition was filed the petitioners complained that the appellate authority, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, had disposed of the appeal. Subsequently, on 13th August 2024 Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners had submitted that though the petitioners had been served with a notice via email communication prior to disposal of the appeal, such service of notice does not have the sanction of law, as the same had not been uploaded in the portal. In support of his contention Mr. Ray, had relied on a notification published on 30th March 2022 by the Ministry of Law and Justice which according to him seeks amendment of Section 146 of the WBGST / CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”).
This Court had taken assistance of Mr. Avra Mazumder, learned advocate. Mr. Mazumder by placing the aforesaid notification has submitted that the notification dated 30th March 2022 only seeks to amend the notification dated 23rd January 2018 and the same does not have the effect of amending the provisions of Section 146 of the said Act. By drawing attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 169 of the said Act, he has submitted that service of notice, decision, orders, summons or any other communication under the said Act may be served in the manner provided in Section 169 of the said Act.
From a perusal of the provision contained in Section 169 of the said Act it appears that one of the recognized manner and mode of service of summons / notice is by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due to the person to whom it is intended, inter alia, including the communication to his email address. In the instant case, the petitioner no.1 had duly been served with a notice in his email address.
Having regard thereto, I am of the view that the petitioners had failed to make out any case for interference. Admittedly, although the petitioners were notified as regards the date of hearing, yet the petitioners chose not to appear. Having not appeared before the appellate authority, the petitioners cannot thrust the burden on the appellate authority by, inter alia, contending that since, the notice was not uploaded in the portal, the petitioners had no adequate notice.
In view thereof, I find that there is no scope for interference in this writ petition. The writ petition being 2
WPA 15504 of 2024 is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
This order shall, however, not stand in the way of the petitioners in availing statutory remedy, if so advised.
Before parting I record a note of appreciation for Mr. Majumder for ably assisting this Court.
All parties shall act on the basis of the sever copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website. (Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) 3
Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.