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

Held

The Court held that the service of notices on the truck driver or by affixation on the truck was not in accordance with the methods prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that when a specific manner of service is prescribed, it must be followed strictly. Furthermore, the Court found that the Appellate Authority's decision to dismiss the appeal on the grounds of it being an afterthought, without granting the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply, constituted a failure of natural justice. Consequently, the orders dated 05.08.2020 and 23.01.2020 were set aside. The respondents were directed to conclude proceedings in accordance with law, with the petitioner granted three weeks to file a fresh reply and the respondents to pass fresh orders expeditiously, preferably within four weeks of the reply filing.

Facts

The petitioner, Ranchi Carrying Corporation, challenged orders passed under the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning goods. The petitioner argued that statutory notices required under Section 129 of the GST Act were not served, rendering the proceedings ex-parte. The respondent authorities contended that notices were served on the truck driver or affixed to the truck. The petitioner further argued that the Appellate Authority dismissed their appeal, stating grounds were an afterthought due to no reply being filed, despite the petitioner claiming they were not given an opportunity to reply. The impugned orders were dated 05.08.2020 (Appellate Authority) and 23.01.2020 (MOV-09).

Key Issues

1. Whether the proceedings initiated and concluded against the petitioner under Section 129 and 130 of the U.P. Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are vitiated due to non-service of mandatory notices as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that service on the truck driver or affixation of notice on the truck does not conform to the methods stipulated in Section 169, leading to ex-parte proceedings. The respondent argued that service was effected on the driver and by affixation. 2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the petitioner's appeal by deeming the grounds as an afterthought without affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply, thereby occasioning a failure of natural justice? The petitioner contended that they were not given an opportunity to file a reply, while the Appellate Authority noted no reply was filed. The petitioner relied on the principles of natural justice.