M/S Jindal Pipes Limited vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the service of the order dated August 21, 2018, on the driver of the vehicle, Sri Narendra Kumar, did not constitute valid service. The Court reasoned that the driver was not a person who would be aggrieved by the order. Therefore, service on the driver was considered no service at all. Consequently, the limitation period for filing the appeal did not commence on August 20, 2018. The Court quashed the appellate authority's order dated August 20, 2019, which had dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The Court directed that the appeal be entertained as having been filed within the limitation period provided under Section 107 of the Act. No other issues were expressly left undecided.
Facts
M/s. Jindal Pipes Limited (petitioner) was transporting goods from Ghaziabad to Ghazipur. The E-Way bill incorrectly stated the distance as 90 kilometers instead of 980 kilometers. On August 20, 2018, Mobile Squad Officials intercepted and seized the goods at Kanpur under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner deposited Rs. 9,15,802.85 towards CGST, SGST, and penalty to secure the release of goods. The tax levied was Rs. 69,849.37, and the individual penalty under CGST and SGST was Rs. 3,88,052.06, totaling Rs. 7,76,104.12. However, as the consignor paid the due amounts, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 69,849.37 on August 21, 2018, making the total amount due Rs. 2,79,397.48. The petitioner filed an appeal on March 6, 2019, against the order dated August 21, 2018. The appellate authority, by an order dated August 20, 2019, dismissed the appeal as time-barred.
Key Issues
1. Whether the service of the order dated August 21, 2018, on the driver of the vehicle, Sri Narendra Kumar, constituted valid service for the purpose of commencing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the order was served only on the driver of the transport agency and not on the consignee or consignor. Relying on the judgment in S/S. Patel Hardware vs. Commissioner of State (2019 (21) GSTN 145), the petitioner argued that the order must be served on a person likely to be aggrieved, and the driver is not such a person. Therefore, the appeal filed on March 6, 2019, was within the limitation period prescribed by Section 107. Respondent's arguments: The learned Standing Counsel argued that the service of the order on the driver, Narendra Kumar, was sufficient service, and thus, the limitation for filing the appeal commenced on August 20, 2018.
Sections Cited
Section 129, Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 41 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1366 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Jindal Pipes Limited Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
Counter affidavit has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. The same be kept on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, does not wish to file rejoinder affidavit.
Certain goods were being transported from Ghaziabad to Ghazipur by a transporter namely M/s. Pragati Logistic Private Limited. However, as in the E-Way bill, which was prepared by the consignor at Ghaziabad from where the goods were being transported, the distance between Ghaziabad and Ghazipur had been stated as 90 kilometres which was in fact 980 kilometres, proceedings were initiated. On 20.8.2018, when the goods after being intercepted by the Mobile Squad Officials at Kanpur were seized under section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the petitioner deposited Rs.9,15,802.85 and got it's goods released.
This amount was paid towards the Central Goods and Service Tax and State Goods and Service Tax along with the
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.