M/S Singh Traders vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the service of the order dated March 15, 2018, on the driver of the truck did not fall within any of the categories specified in clauses (a) to (f) of Section 169(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Consequently, the service was not valid. The Court found the appellate authority's order dated November 30, 2019, dismissing the appeal on grounds of limitation, to be arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the mandate of Section 169. The ratio decidendi is that for limitation to commence, service of an order must be effected strictly in accordance with the modes prescribed by Section 169 of the Act; service on a driver is insufficient. The Court set aside the impugned order and directed the appellate authority to hear and decide GST Appeal No. 58 of 2019 on merits, without considering the question of limitation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Singh Traders, a registered dealer, challenges an order dated November 30, 2019, passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Respondent No. 1) dismissing their GST appeal (No. 58 of 2019) on grounds of limitation. The original order, dated March 15, 2018, was passed by Respondent No. 2 under Section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, determining tax and penalty of Rs. 3,03,660/- due to the absence of an E-way Bill. The petitioner contends that this order was served on the driver of the truck, not on them or their authorized representative, and they only obtained a certified copy on July 10, 2019, filing their appeal on July 12, 2019. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of the order dated March 15, 2018, on the driver of the truck constituted valid service under Section 169 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the purpose of commencing the limitation period for filing an appeal? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that service on the driver of the truck is not valid service as per Section 169 of the Act, as a driver cannot be considered an authorized representative or an adult family member. Therefore, the limitation period should commence from July 10, 2019, the date they obtained a certified copy of the order. They relied on the High Court's judgment in M/s SS Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner, State G.S.T. and 2 others (Writ Tax No. 1388 of 2020), which held that service on the driver is not valid and limitation starts from the date of obtaining a copy of the order. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue or state.