Case Law Details
Singh Traders Vs Additional Commissioner Grade-2 (Allahabad High Court)
The contention, in brief, is that the petitioner is registered dealer having a valid registration. The petitioner alleges that the Respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 15.3.2018 under Section 129 (3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (in short ‘the Act’) against the petitioner on the grounds that the goods were not accompanied by the requisite E-way Bill-01 and proceeded to determine tax and penalty of Rs. 3,03,660/-. Petitioner alleges that, aggrieved against the said order dated 15.3.2018, he preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 58/2019 A.Y. 2018-2019 before the Respondent No. 1. It is claimed by the petitioner that the petitioner had obtained a certified copy of the order dated 15.3.2018 on 10.7.2019 and therefore, the appeal was filed on 12.7.2019. It is alleged that the order dated 15.3.2018 was served on the driver of the truck in question and was never served upon the petitioner, which is against the mandate of Section 169 of the the Act. The Respondent No. 1 vide its order dated 30.11.2019 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as prescribed under Section 107 (1) and 107 (4) of the the Act.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the copy of the order was served upon the driver of the truck, who, by no stretch of imagination, can be termed as representative of the petitioner and thus, starting point of limitation should have been from 10.7.2019, the date on which the petitioner obtained the copy of the order against which the appeal was preferred. The petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 10.12.2018 passed in Writ Tax No. 1388 of 2018 (M/s SS Patel Hardware Vs. Commissioner, State G.S.T. and 2 others) whereby this Court had decided the writ petition holding that the service of the order on the driver of the truck cannot be deemed to be a valid service and thus, the period of limitation would commence from the day when a certified copy/copy of the order is made available to the petitioner.
A perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that service on the driver would not fall within any of the category specified from the Clause a to f of Section 169 (1) of the Act. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the order impugned in the present writ petition is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the mandate of Section 169 of the Act. Accordingly, the order dated 30.11.2019 is set aside. The appellate authority is directed to hear and decide the GST Appeal No. 58 of 2019 A.Y. 2018-2019 in accordance with law without going into the question of limitation on merits. The appellate authority shall decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
