Adjudicating order deemed served on tender date under Section 129(3) despite non-receipt by registered post

The Kerala HC ruled on deemed service of an adjudicating order under Section 129(3). The court held that under Section 169(1)(b) and (2), service by registered post with acknowledgement due creates a statutory fiction whereby the order is deemed served on the date tendered, regardless of actual receipt. The petitioner was deemed served on 03.02.2020. The court emphasized that statutory fiction must be given effect and that the right to appeal cannot be curtailed solely due to non-receipt of an order. The respondent was directed to issue a certified copy to preserve the petitioner's appeal rights. Petition disposed.

---

---

Issues:
- Service of order under Section 129(3) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act
- Invocation of bank guarantee without serving the order
- Right to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act
- Contention for issuance of a certified copy of the order
- Condonation of period of limitation for pursuing an appeal

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service of order under Section 129(3) of the Act
The court examined the provisions of Section 169 of the Act which outline the methods of serving notices, orders, or communications. The court noted that service by registered post with acknowledgement due creates a deeming fiction where the decision or order is deemed to have been served on the date of tendering. Based on the counter affidavit and documents produced, the court found that the order under Section 129(3) was served on the petitioner on 03.02.2020, supported by the dispatch register and acknowledgement card.

Issue 2: Invocation of bank guarantee without serving the order
The petitioner alleged that the order under Section 129(3) was not served, thereby impeding the right to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act. However, the respondent contended that the order was dispatched and received by the petitioner. The court, considering the petitioner's claim for a certified copy to pursue statutory remedies, directed the respondent to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner promptly.

Issue 3: Right to prefer an appeal under Section 107 of the Act
The petitioner argued that the right to appeal should not be curtailed due to non-receipt or misplacement of the order. Citing relevant Supreme Court orders condoning periods of limitation, the petitioner sought the issuance of a certified copy to exercise the statutory remedy of appeal. The court acknowledged this contention and directed the respondent to provide the certified copy to enable the petitioner to pursue the appeal.

Issue 4: Contention for issuance of a certified copy of the order
The court recognized the petitioner's entitlement to a certified copy of the order to facilitate the pursuit of statutory remedies. Emphasizing the importance of ensuring access to legal remedies, the court directed the respondent to issue the certified copy promptly to enable the petitioner to proceed with the appeal process.

Issue 5: Condonation of period of limitation for pursuing an appeal
Considering the petitioner's right to appeal and the Supreme Court's orders regarding the condonation of limitation periods, the court directed the respondent to issue the certified copy promptly. The court also instructed that the invocation of the bank guarantee be put on hold for 60 days to allow the petitioner time to pursue statutory remedies upon receiving the certified copy.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent to issue a certified copy of the order to the petitioner and keeping the bank guarantee invocation on hold to enable the petitioner to pursue statutory remedies within the specified period.

---