Case Law Details
Sunil Kumar K Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court)
In the case of Sunil Kumar K Vs State Tax Officer (Kerala High Court), the Kerala High Court addressed an important issue regarding the use of the common portal for communication of GST-related orders. The appellant, Sunil Kumar K, challenged a judgment from the learned Single Judge concerning the assessment order communicated through the government portal. The primary contention was that the portal used for the assessment order was not officially notified for such purposes under Section 146 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. This article delves into the details of the case, the arguments presented, and the court’s ruling.
1. Case Background
Sunil Kumar K, the appellant, was a dealer under the CGST/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax (SGST) Act, 2017. The dispute arose when the appellant contested an assessment order communicated through a government portal. The core argument was that the portal used for the order was not intended for such notifications, as per Section 146 of the CGST Act.
2. Arguments of the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel, Sri. Bobby John, argued that Section 146 of the CGST Act specified the portal’s use for particular functions, such as registration, tax payments, and returns, but did not include the uploading of assessment orders. Hence, he claimed that the assessment order communicated through this portal was invalid. The counsel highlighted that the government had not notified the portal for the purposes of uploading orders and notices.
3. Single Judge’s Ruling
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, stating that although the appellant accessed the assessment order belatedly, he had ultimately retrieved it from the same portal. The judge noted that the appellant’s delay in accessing the portal was a result of his own lapse. Therefore, the Single Judge relegated the appellant to pursue the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act.
4. High Court’s Analysis
On appeal, the Kerala High Court evaluated the contention that the common portal was not notified for the communication of orders. The court referred to Section 169 of the CGST Act, which allows for decisions, orders, summonses, notices, and other communications to be served via the common portal.
The High Court observed that Section 169 must be read in conjunction with Section 146. According to the court, once a portal is notified for specific purposes under Section 146, it could also serve for additional functions, including the communication of orders and notices, as per Section 169. The court referenced an amendment to the notification under Section 146, which included functions related to the CGST Rules, 2017, and was made effective retrospectively from June 22, 2017.
5. Court’s Conclusion
The High Court found that the notification of the common portal included the communication of assessment orders. The amendment to the notification clarified that the portal could be used for all functions under the CGST Rules, including the uploading of orders. Consequently, the High Court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, concluding that the appellant’s challenge lacked merit. The writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the assessment order communicated through the portal.
Conclusion
The Kerala High Court’s ruling in Sunil Kumar K Vs State Tax Officer underscores the broader interpretation of statutory provisions concerning the use of the common portal under GST laws. The decision clarifies that once a portal is notified for certain functions under the CGST Act, it encompasses additional functions such as communication of orders and notices.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The petitioner in WP(C).No. 6240 of 2024 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
The appellant who was a dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act/Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, (CGST/SGST), 2017 and Rules approached the writ court impugning Ext.P12 assessment order. The principal contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant was that the assessment order was communicated to the appellant through the portal that was notified by the Government for such purposes in accordance with Section 146 of the CGST Act, and hence he was not aware of the order since he had accessed the portal belatedly. It was his further contention that the Government had not notified the portal for the purposes of uploading orders, notices, etc., and therefore, the portal could be used only for the specific purposes mentioned in Section 146 of the Act.
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found that albeit belatedly, the petitioner had downloaded the assessment order from the very same portal, and therefore, the delay occasioned in retrieving the assessment order from the portal was a predicament that the appellant found himself in because of his own latches. The learned Single Judge, therefore, relegated the appellant to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal in terms of Section 107 of the GST Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed with the aforesaid finding.
4. Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Bobby John, that the notification of the portal in terms of Section 146 was only for the purposes of facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation, and settlement of integrated tax, electronic waybill, and for carrying out such other functions as may be prescribed. He argued that in as much as the uploading of orders is not a purpose specifically mentioned in Section 146, the common portal cannot be used for such purposes.
5. Attractive though the submissions may appear at first blush, we are afraid, we cannot accept the same. A reading of Section 169 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under the Act or Rules may be served on the assessee, inter alia, by making it available on the common portal. We are of the view that this statutory provision has to be read along with the provisions of Section 146, and when so read, it would mean that once a common portal is notified for the purposes of the Act, then any of the actions such as registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, etc., as also the communication of notices, orders, etc., as provided for under the statute can be effected through the notified portal. We have also been shown a copy of the notification amending the earlier notification issued under Section 146 of the CGST Act so as to make it abundantly clear that the notification of the common portal can also be, inter alia, for all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017. The said amendment has also been given retrospective effect from 22.06.2017. Thus, in any view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge that is impugned in the Writ Appeal.
The Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Author Bio
