2023 (1) TMI 288 - HC - GST

Challenging the order of demand of GST - time limitation for filing appeal - it is alleged that the impugned order has not been served on the writ petitioner by resorting to the method of service set out in Section 169 (1)(b) of TNG ST Act - HELD THAT - A careful perusal of language in which Section 169 is couched makes it clear that methods of service adumbrated therein are not conjunctive but are alternate methods of service. The reason is, the language in which sub-section (1) is couched makes it clear that service shall be by one of the methods adumbrated therein. To be noted as many as six methods (a) to (f) have been adumbrated therein. Be that as it may, though not averred in the writ affidavit, learned counsel for writ petitioner submits that writ petitioner attempted to prefer an appeal against the impugned order to the Appellate Authority by way of a statutory appeal under Section 107 of TN-G ST Act and the appeal is not being entertained. Absent averments and absent material in the case file before this Court, this Court does not want to make forays into these territories. Suffice to say that an appeal under Section 107 is subject to a 'prescribed period of limitation' and a 'condonable period of limitation' i.e., three months and one month respectively. It is also circumscribed by a pre-deposit condition. If the writ petitioner is able to satisfy the Appellate Authority qua limitation and pre-deposit, it is open to the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.

Summary

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.