9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 1076 - HC - GSTTimeliness of the order u/s 129 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT - The print of sent mail is doubtful because petitioner filed appeal on Form GST APL-01 giving date of order as 27th September, 2024. The appeal was successfully uploaded. There is also said letter dated 18th October, 2024 written by Assistant Commissioner of State Tax to petitioner, in which there is clear mention of 27th September, 2024 as date of the order. Furthermore, sub-rule (5) in rule 142 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 requires summary of the order issued, inter alia, under section 129, to be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC-07. There is no dispute that this was done on 27th September, 2024. The impugned order is found to have been made on the 8th day from date of service of the notice specifying penalty. It does not meet the requirement under sub-section (3) of section 129. It is therefore liable to be and is set aside and quashed - petition disposed off.
Issues:
1. Timeliness of the order under section 129 of Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Analysis: The petitioner, represented by Mr. Kar, challenged an order dated 27th September, 2024, containing a demand under section 129 of the Odisha Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Mr. Kar argued that the order was beyond the prescribed time of 7 days from the service of the notice, as required by section 129(3). He pointed out a communication dated 18th October, 2024, which indicated that the impugned order was indeed passed on 27th September, 2024. He sought the quashing of the demand based on this discrepancy. On the other hand, Mr. Mishra, representing the revenue, contended that the order was actually made on 26th September, 2024, which was within the 7-day period as mandated by section 129(3). He highlighted the communication methods specified in section 169(1)(c) and provided evidence of an email sent to the petitioner on 26th September, 2024, and the subsequent uploading of the order on the portal on 27th September, 2024. Mr. Mishra argued that the order was validly made and should not be quashed. The court analyzed the timeline and communication of the order in light of section 129(3) and found that the order needed to be made on or before 26th September, 2024. Despite the revenue's claim that communication was made via email on 26th September, 2024, the court noted discrepancies in the evidence provided. The court emphasized the importance of communication under the Indian Contract Act, stating that the order's communication must be complete when it comes to the knowledge of the recipient. The court was not convinced that the communication was effectively done on 26th September, 2024, as claimed by the revenue. Further, the court considered the petitioner's appeal filing, which mentioned the order date as 27th September, 2024, and a letter from the Assistant Commissioner explicitly stating the same date. Additionally, the court noted that the summary of the order was electronically uploaded on 27th September, 2024, in compliance with the rules. Based on these discrepancies and inconsistencies, the court concluded that the impugned order was made on the 8th day from the notice's service, failing to meet the requirement of section 129(3), and subsequently set aside and quashed the order. In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioner to seek a refund of the pre-deposit due to the sale of goods in the interim. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely compliance with statutory provisions and the necessity of accurate communication in legal proceedings.
|
