Valid service for GST appeal limitation requires notice to an aggrieved person, not merely the vehicle driver.

Service of an order on the driver of a transport vehicle, who was neither the consignor nor the consignee and had no apparent stake in the tax or penalty demand, is not effective service for starting limitation for a statutory appeal under the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017. Because the order was not communicated to a person likely to be aggrieved, limitation did not begin to run from that service. The later appeal was therefore within time, and the delay objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether service of the order on the driver of the transport vehicle amounted to valid service so as to start the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The order was communicated only to the driver of the vehicle, who was neither the consignor nor the consignee and was not the person who could be treated as aggrieved by the levy of tax and penalty. Service on such a person could not constitute effective service for the purpose of commencing limitation for appeal. As the order was not served on a person likely to be aggrieved, the appeal filed later could not be treated as time-barred.

Conclusion: Service on the driver was not valid service, the appeal was within limitation, and the objection on delay was not sustainable.

---