The Appellate Authority, in the present case where it is alleged that service of the order dated 09.07.2019 is by registered email, has failed to consider that the first respondent has not furnished any details in this regard.
Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017—Service of Notice – The petitioner challenged the best judgment order dated 09.07.2019 under Section 62 (1) of the Act and order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner’s appeal rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond even the condonable period holding that the copy of the best Judgment order dated 09.07.2019 is served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail on 09.07.2019. The petitioner has not received copy of the order dated 09.07.2019 on the registered e-mail. The petitioner relied provisions of Section 169 of the Act, which elaborates that the date of service only if the service is in any of the modes contemplated under Section 169[1][1], [b], [e] or [f]. But when the asserted mode of service is either under sub-clause [c] or [d] of Section 169[1] of the Act, which provide for service by registered email or by uploading on the web portal, there cannot be any deemed service. The court observed that the Department asserts the date of communication as 09.07.2019 where as the petitioner asserts as 7.11.2019. The Appellate Authority while considering the question of the date of communication, would also have to decide on the merits of the case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the appellate authority.
The Appellate Authority, in the present case where it is alleged that service of the order dated 09.07.2019 is by registered email, has failed to consider that the first respondent has not furnished any details in this regard.
Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017—Service of Notice – The petitioner challenged the best judgment order dated 09.07.2019 under Section 62 (1) of the Act and order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner’s appeal rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond even the condonable period holding that the copy of the best Judgment order dated 09.07.2019 is served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail on 09.07.2019. The petitioner has not received copy of the order dated 09.07.2019 on the registered e-mail. The petitioner relied provisions of Section 169 of the Act, which elaborates that the date of service only if the service is in any of the modes contemplated under Section 169[1][1], [b], [e] or [f]. But when the asserted mode of service is either under sub-clause [c] or [d] of Section 169[1] of the Act, which provide for service by registered email or by uploading on the web portal, there cannot be any deemed service. The court observed that the Department asserts the date of communication as 09.07.2019 where as the petitioner asserts as 7.11.2019. The Appellate Authority while considering the question of the date of communication, would also have to decide on the merits of the case.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the appellate authority.