Service methods u/s 169(1) are alternative; appeal u/s 107 bound by limitation and pre-deposit; writ dismissed

Section 169(1) methods of service are alternate, not conjunctive: the statutory text permits service by any one of the enumerated methods, and therefore a challenge to service must address which permissible method was used. Separately, an appeal under Section 107 is subject to the statutory limitation period and the statutory pre-deposit condition; if the appellant satisfies the Appellate Authority on limitation and pre-deposit, the Authority may adjudicate the appeal on merits. Writ petition challenging the demand order dismissed by HC.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to tax demands under TN-G & ST Act based on method of service of impugned order.

Analysis:
The writ petitioner challenged an order dated 07.02.2022 regarding tax demands under the TN-G & ST Act, specifically focusing on the method of service of the impugned order. The main contention was that the order had not been served as per Section 169(1)(b) of the Act, which requires service through registered post, speed post, or courier with acknowledgment due at the recipient's last known address. However, the Revenue counsel argued that Section 169(1)(d) allows for service by making the order available on the common portal, which was done in this case on the same day as the order was issued.

The court noted that Section 169 provides alternative methods of service, and the use of any one of the methods listed is sufficient. In this case, since the impugned order was uploaded to the common portal on the same day, it fulfilled the requirements of service as per the Act. The court emphasized that the different methods of service listed in Section 169 are not conjunctive but rather alternate methods, and the service was valid in this instance.

Additionally, the writ petitioner mentioned attempting to file an appeal under Section 107 of the TN-G & ST Act, which was not entertained by the Appellate Authority. The court refrained from delving into the appeal process due to the lack of material and averments before it. It highlighted that an appeal has prescribed and condonable periods of limitation, along with a pre-deposit condition, which the petitioner must fulfill for the appeal to be considered on its merits.

Ultimately, the court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order in the writ petition and dismissed the petition accordingly. The court also dismissed the associated Writ Miscellaneous Petition (WMP) and ruled that there would be no order as to costs in this matter.

---