Case Law Details
New Grace Automech Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
In the case of New Grace Automech Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. State Tax Officer, the petitioner challenged a tax demand order under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TN-GST) Act, 2017. The primary contention was that the order, dated February 7, 2022, was not served as per Section 169(1)(b) of the Act, which requires service through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment due. The petitioner argued that the order was not properly communicated, thereby affecting their right to appeal. However, the State Tax Officer defended the service method, citing Section 169(1)(d), which allows orders to be made available on the common portal as a valid means of service. The court examined the statutory language and concluded that the methods of service listed in Section 169 are alternative rather than mandatory in conjunction. Since the order was uploaded on the common portal on the same day, the court held that the tax demand was properly served.
The petitioner also attempted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the TN-GST Act but faced procedural hurdles, including the statutory limitation period and the pre-deposit requirement. The court noted that if the petitioner could satisfy the appellate authority regarding these conditions, the appeal could be considered on its merits. However, in the absence of any material supporting the petitioner’s claims, the court found no reason to interfere with the tax demand order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the validity of e-service of tax orders through the GST portal.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr. B. Thirumalai, learned counsel on record for writ petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes) who accepted notice on behalf of lone respondent are before this Writ Court.
2. Owing to the narrow scope of the captioned writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, main writ petition was taken up and heard out.
3. Writ petitioner has challenged an ‘order dated 07.02.2022 bearing reference ZD330222000916X’ [hereinafter ‘impugned order’ for the sake of convenience and clarity] making certain tax demands qua ‘Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017’ [hereinafter ‘TN-G & ST Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience].
4. Notwithstanding very many averments in the writ affidavit, the lone point that is canvassed by the learned counsel for writ petitioner is, the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner by resorting to the method of service set out in Section 169 (1)(b) of TN- G&ST Act.
5. Learned counsel for writ petitioner adverting to Section 169 (1)(b) of TN-G&ST Act submitted that it is imperative that the impugned order is served on the writ petitioner through registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due at the writ petitioner’s last known address of business or residence.
6. Responding to the aforementioned lone point on which captioned writ petition is predicated, learned Revenue counsel drew the attention of this Court to Section 169 (1)(d) of TN-G&ST Act which provides for service by making available the order in the common portal. This writ Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce Section Section 169(1)(b) and (d) of TN-G&ST 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 nay one of the following methods, namely:-
(a) …..
(b) 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
(c) …..
(d) by making it available on the common portal; or
(e) ….
(f)…..
(2)…..
(3)…. ‘
7. 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.
8. Learned Revenue counsel further submits on instructions that the impugned order was uploaded or in other words made available in the common portal on the same day i.e., 07.02.2022. There is no disputation or contestation on this submission made on instructions. This by itself drops the curtains on the captioned writ petition.
9. Be that as it may, though not averred in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner attempted to prefer an appeal against the impugned order to the Appellate Authority by way of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G&ST Act and the appeal is not being Absent averments and absent material in the case file before this Court, this Court does not want to make forays into these territories. Suffice to say that an appeal under Section 107 is subject to a ‘prescribed period of limitation’ and a ‘condonable period of limitation’ i.e., three months and one month respectively. It is also circumscribed by a pre-deposit condition. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority qua limitation and pre-deposit, it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
11. Be that as it may, there is no ground to interfere qua impugned order in the captioned writ petition. Sequitur is captioned writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, captioned WMP is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Author Bio
