Court reinstates appeal, stresses timely filing & proper service evidence. Reconsideration ordered.

The Court set aside the dismissal of the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act due to a delay in filing, emphasizing the necessity for the Appellate Authority to properly assess the date of communication. The Court directed a reconsideration of the matter, highlighting the importance of adhering to timelines for filing appeals and the need for concrete evidence of service under Section 169 of the Act. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Appellate Authority without further notice for a reevaluation of the case.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to best judgment order under Section 62 of CGST Act, 2017 and dismissal of appeal under Section 107 of the Act due to delay in filing.

Analysis:
The petitioner contested the rejection of their appeal under Section 107 of the Act, arguing that the appeal was dismissed on the basis of being filed beyond the condonable period. They disputed the claim that the copy of the best judgment order was served on their registered e-mail, stating they only became aware of the order after being informed by their Bankers. The petitioner emphasized that the Appellate Authority could not rely solely on the assertion of service via e-mail without concrete evidence. The petitioner highlighted the importance of establishing proper service under Section 169 of the Act for deeming provisions to apply.

The Court noted the provisions of Section 107 of the Act, which allow for an appeal within a specified timeframe from the date of communication of the decision or order, with an additional condonable period. It stressed the necessity for the Appellate Authority to consider the circumstances presented by both parties to determine the date of communication. In this case, conflicting dates were asserted by the Department and the petitioner, requiring a thorough examination by the Appellate Authority. The Court underscored the significance of adhering to the timelines prescribed by the Act for filing appeals and the subsequent lapse of the right of appeal.

The judgment highlighted the failure of the Appellate Authority to address the controversy surrounding the date of communication effectively. It directed that the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be reconsidered by the Appellate Authority in light of the observations made. The petitioner was instructed to appear before the Appellate Authority on a specified date without further notice. The Court emphasized the importance of the Appellate Authority considering both the date of communication and the merits of the case while adjudicating on appeals under Section 107 of the Act.

---