M/S. P Venu Gopal Reddy vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals 6)

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation without properly adjudicating the dispute regarding the date of service of the best judgment order. The Court noted that Section 107 of the CGST Act requires the Appellate Authority to consider the date of communication of the order to the aggrieved person when determining the period of limitation for filing an appeal. The Court found that the Appellate Authority did not address the controversy between the petitioner's asserted date of service (07.11.2019) and the department's asserted date (15.07.2019). The Court also observed that the Appellate Authority, while considering the question of limitation, should also decide on the merits of the case. Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the proceedings were restored to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 14.12.2020.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P. Venu Gopal Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: a best judgment assessment order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2) under Section 62 of the CGST Act, and an order dated 06.03.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 (Respondent No. 1) dismissing the petitioner's appeal. The appeal was dismissed 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 15.07.2019. The petitioner contended that they never received this email and only became aware of the order when their bankers informed them, and they received a physical copy with acknowledgement on 07.11.2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the best judgment order dated 15.07.2019 was deemed to be served on the petitioner on the said date, despite the petitioner's assertion of non-receipt, and in dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation, thereby turning on the interpretation and application of Section 169 of the CGST Act regarding modes of service and deemed service, and Section 107 of the CGST Act concerning the period of limitation for appeals. The petitioner argued that Section 169(2) and (3) of the Act, which provide for deeming provisions regarding service, are applicable only to modes of service specified in Section 169(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f). They contended that service by registered email (Section 169(1)(c)) or uploading on a web portal (Section 169(1)(d)) does not permit deemed service, and the department must prove actual dispatch. The petitioner further argued that Section 107 mandates the Appellate Authority to consider the date of communication and the circumstances surrounding it when deciding on limitation, which the Appellate Authority failed to do. The petitioner relied on the provisions of Section 169 and Section 107 of the CGST Act. The respondents did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.