M/S Tikaula Sugar Mills LTD. vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Held
The Court held that the order dated October 3, 2019, could not be sustained and was quashed. The Court relied on the judgment in S/S. Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner of State GST (2019 (21) GSTL 145 (All.)), which stated that the intention of the statute is for the order, required to be appealed against under Section 107(4) of the Act, to be communicated to the person aggrieved by it. Since the order was served on the driver of the transport agency, who was not the aggrieved party, it could not be considered proper service for the purpose of commencing the limitation period. Consequently, the appeal shall now be treated as having been filed within the limitation period provided under Section 107 of the Act and shall be decided in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated October 3, 2019, passed by the Appellate Court. This order had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as being barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that an order must be communicated to the aggrieved person for the limitation period to commence. The State's counter affidavit revealed that the order being appealed was served on Narendra Singh, who was the driver of the transport agency carrying the goods to the consignee. The petitioner argued this service was not proper as the driver was not the aggrieved party.
Key Issues
1. Whether the service of an order under Section 107(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, on the driver of a transport agency constitutes proper communication to the aggrieved person, thereby commencing the limitation period for filing an appeal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the appeal is to be filed by a person aggrieved by the order, and the order must be communicated to such an aggrieved person. Service on the driver of the transport agency, who was merely transporting goods, does not amount to communication with the aggrieved party. Respondent's Contention: The State contended, through its counter affidavit, that the order was served on Narendra Singh, the driver. The judgment does not explicitly record further arguments from the State regarding the validity of this service or the commencement of limitation.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 107(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 41 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1364 of 2019 Petitioner :- M/S Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Rejoinder affidavit filed toady be kept on record. This writ petition has been filed against the order of the Appellate Court dated 3.10.2019 by which the appeal has been dismissed as being barred by limitation. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal is to be filed by a person aggrieved and the order also ought to have been communicated to the person who is aggrieved. It is clear from the counter affidavit, which has been filed by the State, that the order which was being appealled against was served on one Narendra Singh who admittedly was the driver of the transport agency who was taking the goods to the consignee. As has been held by the judgment reported in 2019 (21) GSTL 145 (All.) : S/S. Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner of State GST that the intention of the Statute was that the order which was required to be appealled against under section 107(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter ref
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.