TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an appeal dismissed as time-barred could be entertained when the penalty order under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was served on the driver of the vehicle and not on the person against whom it was passed.
Analysis: The limitation for filing an appeal runs from the date of communication of the order, and the period for condonation of delay is restricted. The phrase "communicated to such person" is to be construed as requiring the order to be brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Where the penalty order was served only on the driver and not on the petitioner who was the person against whom the order operated, the order could not be treated as duly communicated to the petitioner for the purpose of triggering limitation.
Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation was not sustainable, and the writ petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: Service of the penalty order on the driver did not amount to communication to the petitioner for the purpose of appeal limitation under the GST law.
Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of limitation under the GST appellate provision, an order is communicated only when it is brought to the knowledge of the person aggrieved by it.
TaxTMI 
