Court protects petitioner's appeal rights despite delayed order receipt. Bank guarantee invocation on hold.

The Court concluded that the petitioner was deemed to have received the order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act on 03.02.2020. Despite this, the petitioner's right to appeal against the final order could not be curtailed due to non-receipt or misplacement of the order. The Court directed the issuance of a certified copy of the order to the petitioner promptly to enable statutory remedies. Additionally, the Court ordered the first respondent to keep the invocation of the bank guarantee in abeyance for 60 days from the judgment date to facilitate the petitioner's pursuit of statutory remedies.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner received the order issued under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax ActRs.
2. Whether the petitioner's right to appeal against the final order can be curtailed due to non-receipt or loss of the orderRs.
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a certified copy of the order to pursue statutory remediesRs.
4. Whether the invocation of the bank guarantee should be kept in abeyanceRs.

Analysis:
Issue 1:
The primary issue addressed in the judgment is whether the petitioner received the order issued under Section 129(3) of the Act. The Court examined the provisions of Section 169 regarding the service of notice, emphasizing that service can be deemed to have occurred through registered post with acknowledgment due. The Court noted that the order was dispatched on 28.01.2020 and the acknowledgment card showed receipt by the petitioner on 03.02.2020. Therefore, the Court concluded that the order under Section 129(3) was served on the petitioner on 03.02.2020.

Issue 2 and 3:
The Court then considered the petitioner's contention that despite the deemed service of the order, the petitioner may have not received or misplaced it, thus warranting a certified copy to pursue statutory remedies. The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's order regarding the condonation of limitation periods. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to appeal and directed the first respondent to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner promptly. The Court emphasized that the petitioner should not be deprived of the right to appeal due to non-receipt or loss of the order.

Issue 4:
Lastly, the Court addressed the issue of keeping the invocation of the bank guarantee in abeyance. The Court exercised its discretion to direct the first respondent to provide a certified copy to the petitioner, thereby allowing the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies. Consequently, the Court ordered that the invocation of the bank guarantee be put on hold and kept alive for 60 days from the judgment date to enable the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies, if available.

In conclusion, the judgment resolved the issues by ensuring the petitioner's right to appeal, directing the issuance of a certified copy of the order, and temporarily halting the invocation of the bank guarantee to facilitate the petitioner's pursuit of statutory remedies.

---