Delay in GST Appeal Filing Condoned as Hard Copy of order not served  

Delay of 285 days in filing of Appeal Condoned in case where no hard copy of the order was served to the Assessee

Summary: The Madras High Court, in Tvl. Deepa Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), GST-Appeal and Others [W.P. No. 19277 of 2024 dated August 13, 2024], condoned a 285-day delay in filing an appeal. The case arose when Deepa Traders contested a demand order dated February 8, 2023, and an appellate rejection order dated April 25, 2024. The appellate authority had dismissed the appeal citing an excessive delay. The taxpayer argued that no physical copy of the order was served, although it was uploaded on the GST portal. The court ruled that reasonable cause for the delay existed, as physical service of the order is a critical requirement. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, and the delay was condoned. However, in an earlier judgment (M/s. New Grace Automech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner Hosur [W.P. No. 35115 of 2022]), the court held that service methods under Section 169 of the GST Act are alternate, not conjunctive. Thus, uploading on the GST portal alone suffices for service. The contrasting rulings highlight differing judicial interpretations of service requirements under GST law.

Facts:

Deepa Traders (“the Petitioner”) filed a writ petition challenging the Order of demand dated February 08, 2023 and the appellate order dated April 25, 2024 (“the Impugned Orders”) rejecting the appeal filed by the Petitioner on the ground that there was delay of 285 days, in filing of appeal.

Issue:

Whether the delay of 285 days Is condonable for filing of appeal based on the ground that no hard copy of the order was provided to the taxpayer?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of W.P. No. 19277 of 2024 held as under:

• Opined that, considering the fact that the notices were uploaded in the portal, but no hard copy was served on the Petitioner, thus, the reasonable cause has been shown by the petitioner for the delay.
• Held that, the Writ Petition is allowed and delay in filing of appeal is condoned.

Our Comments:

However, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. New Grace Automech Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissiner Hosur [W.P.No.35115 of 2022 dated January 3, 2023], wherein similar issues were involved, took a contrary view and observed that “A careful perusal of language in which Section 169 is couched makes it clear that methods of service adumbrated therein are not conjunctive but are alternate methods of service. The reason is, the language in which sub-section (1) is couched makes it clear that service shall be by one of the methods adumbrated therein. To be noted as many as six methods (a) to (f) have been adumbrated therein.”

(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)