M/S Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals) Of Chhattisgarh State Tax (G S T )

Held

The High Court held that the appellate authority's rejection of the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation, without properly verifying the petitioner's claim of non-service of the order dated 27.06.2019, was not proper, legal, or justified. The Court found that the appellate authority ought to have given a fair consideration to the petitioner's contentions and verified whether the order was indeed served, either physically or electronically. Since this verification was absent, and the decision was based solely on pleadings, the impugned order was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the application for condonation of delay on its merits, after due verification of facts and consideration of the petitioner's contentions.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Vinod Kumar Jain, a partnership firm, challenged an order dated 30.06.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals) of Chhattisgarh State Tax (GST). The appeal was rejected as being barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the original order dated 27.06.2019 under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017, passed by the assessing authority, was never served upon them, either physically or electronically on their GST portal. This prevented them from filing a timely appeal. They brought this to the appellate authority's notice, who then issued a notice on 04.03.2020 calling for an explanation regarding the delay. The petitioner responded, reiterating the non-service of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority was barred by limitation under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, considering the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of the order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the appeal was not barred by limitation because the original order dated 27.06.2019 was never served upon them, neither physically nor electronically. They asserted that this lack of communication prevented them from filing the appeal promptly. They further contended that the appellate authority mechanically rejected their appeal without properly considering their submissions regarding non-service and the subsequent application for condonation of delay. Revenue's Arguments: The State counsel submitted that orders under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act are required to be served and are normally uploaded electronically for prompt service. They noted that the appellate authority seemed to have considered the petitioner's application for condonation of delay, which referred to DRC-07 and e-notice/e-order, but questioned if these were the specific orders under Section 73(9).