M/S P Venu Gopal Reddy vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The High 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, 2017, mandates a three-month period for filing an appeal from the date of communication, with a further condonable period of thirty days. It is crucial for the Appellate Authority to determine the actual date of communication, considering the contentions of both parties. The Court noted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the petitioner's assertion of receiving the order physically on November 7, 2019, as opposed to the Department's claim of email service on July 9, 2019. The Court also highlighted that when the mode of service is by registered email or web portal (Section 169(1)(c) and (d)), the Department must establish actual dispatch or upload, and deeming provisions do not automatically apply without proof. Therefore, the impugned order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. P. Venu Gopal Reddy, filed a writ petition challenging a best judgment assessment order dated July 9, 2019, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes under Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner also challenged the subsequent order dated March 6, 2020, by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals)-6, Bengaluru, which rejected the petitioner's appeal. The appeal was rejected 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 July 9, 2019. The petitioner contended that they never received the order via email and only became aware of it 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 best judgment order dated July 9, 2019, was deemed to be served on the petitioner on that date, despite the petitioner's assertion of non-receipt via email and later physical receipt on November 7, 2019, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the provisions of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: - The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority erred in concluding deemed service of the order dated July 9, 2019, solely based on the respondent's assertion of email dispatch. - Reliance was placed on Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, particularly sub-sections (2) and (3), arguing that deeming provisions for service by registered email or web portal require the Department to establish actual dispatch or upload, unlike other modes of service. - The petitioner asserted that the Appellate Authority failed to consider the controversy regarding the date of communication and the circumstances presented by the petitioner. Revenue's Arguments: - The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or the respondents.