Suraj Freight Carrier PVT. LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the service of the ex-parte order dated 14.9.2018 upon the driver of the vehicle was not in contravention of the provisions of Section 169 of the U.P. GST Act. The Court found that the admitted fact was that the order was served upon the driver, which is not a prescribed mode of service under Section 169. Consequently, the order dated 23.9.2019, which rejected the petitioner's appeal on grounds of delay, was held to be erroneous. The Court set aside the order dated 23.9.2019 and directed the Appellate Authority to hear the petitioner's appeal on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The ratio decidendi is that service of statutory orders on the driver of a vehicle, when not a prescribed mode under Section 169, renders such service invalid, and appeals should not be dismissed solely on delay without considering the merits, especially when the Tribunal is not constituted.

Facts

The petitioner, Suraj Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd., challenges an order dated 23.9.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority. This order rejected the petitioner's appeal against an ex-parte order dated 14.9.2018, which quantified a GST demand at Rs. 21,10,032/-. The petitioner claims it only became aware of this demand on 4.2.2019 when a demand notice was issued. The ex-parte order was allegedly served on the vehicle's driver, not the petitioner. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on grounds of delay, presuming the petitioner knew of the order and disbelieving the claimed date of communication. The petitioner argues that the Tribunal is not constituted, leaving it without remedy, and relies on a previous High Court judgment regarding service on a driver.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of the ex-parte order dated 14.9.2018 on the driver of the vehicle, as per Section 169 of the U.P. GST Act, constitutes valid service on the petitioner? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, without considering the merits, given the alleged improper service and the non-constitution of the GST Tribunal? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that service of the order on the driver of the vehicle is not a valid mode of service prescribed under Section 169 of the Act. They argue that they had no knowledge of the ex-parte order until 4.2.2019, and the Appellate Authority's dismissal on delay, without considering the merits, is erroneous, especially in the absence of a constituted Tribunal. They rely on the High Court's judgment in M/S Singh Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade-2 and 2 Others (Writ Tax No. 661 of 2020). Respondent's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondent State of U.P. and 2 Others.