High Court reverses dismissal of appeal challenging garnishee notice under GST Act due to address discrepancies

The High Court set aside the appellate order dismissing the appeal challenging a garnishee notice freezing a bank account under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court found discrepancies in the address details and timing of order delivery, concluding that the grounds for dismissal were not valid. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, granting the petitioners the opportunity to seek recall of the notice and expedited appeal resolution.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to garnishee notice freezing bank account under Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Dismissal of appeal on grounds of limitation under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Challenge to appellate order based on non-service of original order and address discrepancies.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioners challenged a garnishee notice freezing their bank account under the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017. The petition was disposed of as the petitioners had approached the appellate authority against the original order, and the garnishee notice was issued during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioners were granted liberty to move the authority for recall of the notice and for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

2. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994, beyond the statutory limit of 60 days and the condonable period of 30 days. The petitioners challenged the appellate order, citing non-service of the original order and discrepancies in the address provided. They argued that the order was not served correctly, affecting their right to appeal within the stipulated time frame.

3. The respondents argued that the order was dispatched and delivered within the required time frame, rejecting the petitioners' plea for relaxation of limitation due to COVID lockdown. The appellate authority upheld the dismissal based on limitation and non-appearance of the petitioners before the adjudicating officer. However, discrepancies in the address provided and the incomplete address on the consignment report raised doubts on the proper service of the notice.

4. The High Court considered the submissions and relevant materials. It noted the discrepancies in the address details and the timing of the order delivery. The Court found that the grounds for rejecting the appeal were not tenable based on the facts presented. Therefore, the appellate order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed without delving into the merits of the tax, penalty, and interest imposition.

---