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

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation without adequately considering the dispute regarding the date of communication of the best judgment order. The Court noted that Section 107 of the Act prescribes a strict timeline for preferring an appeal, commencing from the date the decision is communicated. The petitioner's assertion of receiving the order on 07.11.2019, as opposed to the Department's claim of service on 07.06.2019 via email, presented a factual controversy that the Appellate Authority failed to address. The Court found that the Appellate Authority did not examine the circumstances surrounding the alleged email service, nor did it consider the petitioner's contention that service under Section 169(1)(c) or (d) requires proof of actual sending. Consequently, the Court set aside the Appellate Authority's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide on the date of communication and then consider the merits of the case. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 14.12.2020.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Venu R K Infra (JV), filed a writ petition challenging two orders. The first was a best judgment assessment order dated 07.06.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2) under Section 62(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The second was an order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 (Respondent No. 1) dismissing the petitioner's appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds that it was filed beyond the condonable period, with the Appellate Authority holding that the best judgment order was served on the petitioner's registered email on 07.06.2019. The petitioner contended they did not receive the order via email and only became aware of it when their bankers informed them, receiving a physical copy on 07.11.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the best judgment order dated 07.06.2019 was deemed served on the petitioner on 07.06.2019, thereby rejecting the appeal as time-barred, considering the petitioner's assertion of receiving a physical copy only on 07.11.2019? The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred by presuming service of the order dated 07.06.2019 via email without establishing actual delivery. They contended that Section 169 of the Act, particularly sub-clauses [c] and [d] of Section 169(1) concerning service by registered email or web portal upload, requires the Department to prove actual sending, not just assertion. The petitioner asserted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider this lack of proof and the discrepancy in the date of communication. They emphasized that Section 107 mandates communication for the limitation period to commence and that the Appellate Authority must decide on the date of communication and the merits of the case. The respondents did not record any arguments in the judgment.