Case Law Details
Jindal Pipes Limited Vs State Of U.P. (Allahabad High Court)
It had been admitted that order was served upon the driver and, therefore, the order was neither served on the consignee nor on the consignor. Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in 2019 (21) GSTN 145 : S/S. Patel Hardware vs. Commissioner of State wherein it has been specifically held that the order by which tax was levied and the penalty was imposed had to be served upon a person who was likely to be aggrieved by the order. It specifically holds that the driver was not a “person aggrieved” to whom the order ought to have been communicated and, therefore, the order definitely was not served upon a person who was likely to be aggrieved and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal which was filed on 6.3.2019 was well within the limitation provided by section 107 of the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submitted that the service of the order on the driver Narendra Kumar was sufficient service and, therefore, the limitation for the filing of the appeal commenced on 20.8.2018 itself.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the order was served on the driver and, therefore, was definitely not served on a person who would have been aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the service on the driver was no service at all.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
