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 communication of the best judgment order. The Court observed that 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. It is crucial for the Appellate Authority to determine the actual date of communication, especially when there is a controversy between the parties. The petitioner's assertion of receiving the order physically on November 7, 2019, contrasted with the Department's claim of email service on April 9, 2019, required a thorough examination. The Court found that the impugned order did not reflect any consideration of this controversy. Therefore, the Appellate Authority was required to decide on the date of communication and, consequently, on the merits of the case. The Court set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter for reconsideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P Venu Gopal Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging two orders: a best judgment assessment order dated April 9, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Respondent No. 2) under Section 62 of the CGST Act, and an order dated March 6, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6 (Respondent No. 1) rejecting 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 April 9, 2019. The petitioner contended that they never received this email and only became aware of the order when their bankers informed them. They received a physical copy of the order on November 7, 2019.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in holding that the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period, based on the deemed service of the best judgment order dated April 9, 2019, on the petitioner's registered email, contrary to the petitioner's assertion of non-receipt and later physical service on November 7, 2019? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on Section 107 and Section 169 of the CGST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred by accepting the Department's assertion of service via registered email without establishing actual delivery. They contended that Section 169(2) and (3) of the CGST 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), not to service by registered email (Section 169(1)(c)) or uploading on the web portal (Section 169(1)(d)). For these latter modes, the Department must prove actual sending or uploading. The petitioner also highlighted that Section 107 of the Act requires the Appellate Authority to consider the circumstances of communication when deciding on limitation. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State.