Electronic service of notices through email valid under Central Excise Act 1944 via CGST Act Section 142(8)(a)

The HC held that electronic service of notices through email is permissible under Central Excise Act, 1944, applying provisions of CGST Act through Section 142(8)(a). The petitioner's argument that Section 37C of the 1944 Act being silent on electronic service modes makes such service invalid was rejected. The court found that conjoint reading of Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of CGST Act allows electronic service for existing laws including the 1944 Act. The petitioner was directed to file appeal with condonation of delay application, with time spent in court excluded from limitation period. Petition disposed of.

---

---

The Telangana High Court considered a case where the petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.146/2023-ST dated 29.09.2023. The main issue revolved around the mode of service of notices and the validity of electronic service through email. The petitioner argued that since notices were not directly served and were only known through the bank, the writ petition should be entertained directly. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the communication through email was valid and in compliance with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).The Court examined Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outlines the methods of service of decisions, orders, and summons. The petitioner argued that email service was not recognized under this provision. However, the respondent relied on Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act, which allow for electronic communication for recovery of arrears of tax under previous laws. The Court found merit in the respondent's argument, stating that the CGST Act provisions could be applied to the 1944 Act.The Court also referenced a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order and noted that it did not address the validity of email service. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had been served a notice under the CGST Act, supporting the continuation of adjudication proceedings under the new Act.Ultimately, the Court decided to dismiss the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioner had the option to appeal the decision. The Court instructed the petitioner to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay, with the appellate authority considering it in accordance with the law. The time spent before the Court would not count towards the limitation period for the appeal. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.In conclusion, the Telangana High Court upheld the validity of email service under the CGST Act for recovery of arrears of tax under previous laws, dismissing the writ petitions and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of filing an appeal.

---