TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1056
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... order dated 16th June, 2023 passed by Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter, 'impugned judgment') by which a demand to the tune of Rs. 35,68,157/- was raised against the Petitioner for wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (hereinafter, 'ITC'). 3. The present petition was disposed of vide judgment dated 20th February, 2024 in the following terms: "1. Petitioner impugns order dated 16.06.2023 affirming the demand against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is constrained to file an appeal for the reason that the order is not communicated to it. He submits that order is normally communicated by being uploaded on the common portal. Subject order has not been uploaded on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tties are reserved." 4. A review was preferred by the Respondent No. 1 qua this judgment dated 20th February, 2024 on the ground that the Petitioner had concealed that a physical copy of the order dated 16th June, 2023 was in fact served upon the Petitioner on 17th August, 2023. Thus, in the review petition, on 29th April, 2024, the previous judgment dated 20th February, 2024 was recalled and the petition was restored to its original number. The relevant portions of this order are set below: "REVIEW PET. 190/2024 6. Review petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 20.02.2024. It is contended that though the petitioner had stated that petitioner had obtained a physical copy of the order from the office of the respondent,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the office premises of the petitioner had been sealed. He accordingly seeks leave to file an appropriate application to place on record the reasons for the delay in filing an appeal and approaching this court belately. 10. In view of the above, the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2024 is recalled. The petition is restored to its own original number." 5. Ms. Benjamin, ld. SSC appearing on behalf of the Respondent - CGST Department vehemently opposes the present writ on the ground that the Petitioner has approached this Court belatedly and has also not come to the Court with clean hands as it failed to disclose that the physical copy of the order was received on 17th August, 2023. 6. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parties in any of the prescribed modes of service and issued in terms of Section 169 of the Central Good and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter, 'CGST Act'). For ready reference the said section has been extracted below: "169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.- (1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:- (a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncurs, however, with the Respondent Department's submission that the Petitioner had a duty to categorically state that it had received a physical copy of the order which unfortunately, it had failed to do so. Thus, the review petition came to be allowed on this ground. 10. The Petitioner is seeking its right to appeal in respect of the impugned order dated 16th June, 2023. In the facts and circumstances of this case where the initial order was given physically to the Petitioner, the appeal could have been filed well within the time prescribed, however, the Petitioner chose not to do so. Instead, it approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, alleging that the impugned order had not been uploaded, thereby suggesting that i....