Ranchi Carrying Corporation vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the methods of service adopted by the respondents, such as serving notices on the driver of the truck or affixing orders to the vehicle, were not in consonance with the specific modes of service stipulated in Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that when a specific procedure is prescribed, it must be followed strictly. It further observed that the Appellate Authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal by deeming the grounds as an afterthought due to the non-filing of a reply, without granting the petitioner an opportunity to submit its response. This constituted a failure of natural justice. Consequently, the orders dated August 31, 2020, and January 23, 2020, were set aside. The respondents were granted liberty to conclude proceedings afresh after proper service of notices. The petitioner was directed to file a fresh reply within three weeks of receiving the notices, and the respondents were to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of the objections being filed.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranchi Carrying Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated August 31, 2020, and January 23, 2020, passed by respondent authorities under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act. The petitioner contended that no proper notices were served as required under Section 129 of the GST Act, rendering the proceedings ex-parte. The respondent authorities stated that notices were served on the truck driver, and one order was affixed to the truck. The petitioner argued that these methods of service were not in accordance with Section 169 of the GST Act. The Appellate Authority had dismissed the petitioner's appeal, noting that no reply was filed to the notices, deeming the appeal grounds as an afterthought.

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated and concluded against the petitioner under Sections 129 and 130 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act were vitiated due to non-service of mandatory notices as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, thereby constituting an ex-parte proceeding and a failure of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the methods of service employed by the respondents, namely serving notices on the truck driver or affixing orders to the vehicle, do not conform to the prescribed modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act. Consequently, the petitioner was denied an opportunity to present its case, leading to ex-parte orders. Respondent's arguments: The respondent authorities contended that notices were duly served, with some served on the driver of the truck and one order affixed to the truck. They claimed compliance with the procedural requirements for service.