2021 (1) TMI 1132 - HC - GST

Court overturns appeal dismissal due to communication failure, emphasizes importance of proper service

M/s Adarsh Tobcco Co. Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others

The Court allowed the petition, overturning the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation. It was held that the penalty order had not been ... Maintainability of appeal - time limitation - penalty order was served on the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner against whom that order was passed - Section 129 of Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Reference has been made to the recital made in the appeal order itself wherein it has been clearly recorded that order dated 06.09.2018 was served on the person in-charge of the vehicle which would be the driver and not the appellant. No useful purpose would be served in keeping the present petition pending or calling for counter affidavit at this stage, the present petition is allowed. Issues: Appeal against dismissal based on limitation period for communication of penalty order.Analysis:The writ petition was filed challenging the appellate authority's order dated 29.09.2020, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation. The petitioner contended that the penalty order under Section 129 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017, dated 06.09.2018, was served on the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner, who was the intended recipient of the order. Reference was made to a previous order of the Court in Writ Tax No.1388 of 2018, where it was observed that the order must be brought to the knowledge of the person likely to be aggrieved for the right of appeal not to be lost. In this case, it was acknowledged that the penalty order was served on the driver of the truck instead of the owner of the goods, who was the intended recipient, thus establishing that the penalty order had not been effectively communicated to the petitioner before a certain date.The Court considered the arguments put forth by the petitioner and the precedent set in previous decisions. It was noted that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit at that stage. Consequently, the present petition was allowed based on the reasons contained in the order dated 10.12.2018 passed in Writ Tax No.-1388 of 2018, on the same terms. The judgment emphasized the importance of effective communication of orders to the concerned parties to safeguard their right of appeal within the specified limitation period.