Case Law Details
Koduvayur Constructions Vs Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract (Kerala High Court)
Introduction: Delve into the recent judgment by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Koduvayur Constructions vs Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract. The court addressed the crucial issue of the validity of serving assessment orders on the GST portal and its impact on the taxpayer’s responsibility.
Detailed Analysis: M/s. Koduvayur Constructions, a registered dealer under the CGST Act, faced a cancellation of its GST registration. Despite believing it had no further tax liability, the Assistant Commissioner issued an assessment order demanding payment. The petitioner argued that the notice served through the GST portal was not valid, challenging the entire proceedings.
The court, citing Section 169 of the CGST Act, emphasized various methods of serving notices, including making them available on the common portal. It noted that the petitioner’s duty was to check and verify the portal for any communication from the Revenue Department. The court dismissed the petitioner’s contention that the assessment order was not served in a valid manner, stating it was the petitioner’s fault for not checking the GST portal.
Conclusion: The Kerala High Court’s decision reaffirms the validity of serving assessment orders on the common GST portal and underscores the taxpayer’s responsibility to monitor the portal for important communications. The ruling in the Koduvayur Constructions case highlights the significance of digital communication in tax matters and establishes that non-compliance with portal notices can’t be used to challenge the validity of assessments.
This article provides a detailed analysis of the Kerala High Court’s judgment in the Koduvayur Constructions case, shedding light on the acceptance of GST portal notices as a valid mode of service. It serves as a valuable resource for understanding the legal implications of digital communication in the context of tax assessments.
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract [WP(C) No. 21212 of 2023 dated August 07, 2023] held that, it is assessee’s responsibility to check the GST portal for any notice or order that had been served on it the assessment order was not served in a valid manner was untenable.
Facts:
M/s. Koduvayur Constructions (“the Petitioner”) a registered dealer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017(“the CGST Act”) whose GST registration was cancelled by the order dated October 21, 2021 w.e.f. September 01, 2021. The Petitioner was under the impression that it had no liability to pay the taxes under the GST law.
However, the Assistant Commissioner (“the Respondent”) issued an assessment order on the common portal dated October 14, 2022 (“the assessment Order”) demanding payment of INR 19,22,566/-.
The petitioner alleges that it was not served with proper notice as provided under the CGST Act. Hence, the entire proceedings leading to cancellation of GST registration and the same is liable to be quashed.
Issue:
Whether service of an assessment order on common GST portal after cancellation of GST registration can be considered an effective mode of service of order under GST law?
Held:
The Hon’ble Kerala High Court in WP(C) NO. 21212 of 2023 held as under: –
- Observed that, a plain reading of Section 169(1) (a) to (f) of the CGST Act, makes it clear that any decision, order, summons, notice, or communication under the CGST Act and its rules can be served on the taxpayer through any one of the methods listed.
- Further observed that, section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act recognizes availability of order on common GST portal as an effective manner of delivery of order.
- Noted that, in the present case the Assessment order was made available on common portal which is a valid mode of service as provided under section 169(1) of CGST Act.
- Held that, it is Petitioner’s duty to check and verify the common GST portal for any communication from Revenue Department and it was Petitioner’s fault to have failed to do so.
- Dismissed the writ filed by the Petitioner.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first respondent from initiating any proceedings against the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act.
2. The petitioner’s case is that it was a registered dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled as per Ext P2 order with effect from 30.9.2021. The petitioner was under the impression that it had no liability to pay the respondents under the above Acts. However, the petitioner has been served with Ext P1 order dated 14.10.2022 on the GST portal, calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.19,22,566/-. There has been no effective service of notice on the petitioner by the respondents. The unreasonable demand raised by the respondents through Ext P1 is unjustifiable. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard; Sri. Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Thushara James, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
4. The principal grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that its GST registration was cancelled by Ext P2 order dated 21.10.2021. The Petitioner was under the bona fide belief that it has no further liability under the CGST/SGST Acts. But, the first respondent has issued the petitioner with Ext P1 assessment order dated 14.10.2022 demanding the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.19,22,566/-. The petitioner alleges that it was not served with proper notice as provided under the Act. Hence, the entire proceedings leading to Ext P1 is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.
5. Sec.169 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with the manner in which service of notice to be carried out in certain circumstances. It is apposite to extract Sec.169 of the CGST Act, which reads as follows:
169. Service of notice in certain circumstances
(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods,namely:-
(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or
(c) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or
(d) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
(e) by making it available on the common portal; or
(f) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
(g) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section(1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.
6. A reading of Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-sec(1) of Sec.169 clearly shows that any decision, order, summons, notice or communication under the Act and Rules can be served on the assessee through any one of the methods mentioned above.
7. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Ext P1 assessment order was made available on the common portal. The petitioner’s only case is that as its GST registration was cancelled by Ext P2 order, the petitioner was under the impression that it has no liability to the respondents. This contention is untenable in view of the alternative modes of service provided under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act. It was the bounden duty of the petitioner to have verified its common portal that is made available as per the provision. Thus, I am of the definite view that the contentions raised in the writ petition that Ext P1 assessment order was not served as per the provisions of the Act is untenable. The writ petition is meritless and is consequentially dismissed.
****
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
Author Bio
