2020 (1) TMI 1084 - HC - GST

Appeal dismissed due to limitation bar, emphasizes proper service of orders on aggrieved party.

M/s Tikaula Sugar Mills Ltd. Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others

The appeal was dismissed by the court due to being barred by limitation as the order was not properly communicated to the aggrieved person as required by ... Maintainability of appeal - aggrieved person - service of notice and order on the Driver - the order which was being appealled against was served on one Narendra Singh who admittedly was the driver of the transport agency - HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the case of S/S PATEL HARDWARE VERSUS COMMISSIONER, STATE G.S.T. AND 2 OTHERS [2018 (12) TMI 1005 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] where it was held that the intention of the Statute was that the order which was required to be appealled against under section 107(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 ought to have been communicated to such a person who was aggrieved by the order and, therefore, when the order was served on the driver, it cannot be said that the order was served on a person who was aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the order dated 3.10.2019 cannot be sustained and is thus quashed. The appeal shall now be treated to have been filed within the limitation provided under section 107 of the Act and shall be decided in accordance with law. Petition allowed. Issues:1. Appeal dismissed as barred by limitation.2. Communication of order to the aggrieved person.3. Interpretation of section 107(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.Detailed Analysis:1. The writ petition challenges the order of the Appellate Court dated 3.10.2019, which dismissed the appeal as being barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal should have been filed by a person aggrieved, and the order should have been communicated to the aggrieved person. The counter affidavit filed by the State revealed that the order was served on a driver of the transport agency, not the person truly aggrieved by the order.2. Citing a judgment reported in 2019 (21) GSTL 145 (All.), the court emphasized the importance of communicating the order to the actual aggrieved person as required under section 107(4) of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The court held that serving the order on the driver, who was not the aggrieved party, did not fulfill the statutory requirement. Consequently, the order dated 3.10.2019 was deemed unsustainable and quashed.3. By interpreting the provisions of section 107 of the Act, the court ruled that the appeal should be considered as filed within the statutory limitation period. The court directed that the appeal be adjudicated in accordance with the law. As a result, the writ petition was allowed, setting aside the order of the Appellate Court and providing the petitioner with the opportunity for a fair hearing on the merits of the case.