9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 743 - HC - GSTService of demand order - scope of service of the order on the driver of the vehicle - Section 169 of GST Act - HELD THAT - The admitted fact is that the order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act. The order is held to be erroneous and is set aside - It is directed that the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits, as expeditiously as possible - petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to detention order under U.P. GST Act, demand notice issuance, appeal rejection on delay grounds, constitution of Tribunal, service of order on driver, contravention of Section 169 of the Act. Detention Order Challenge: The petitioner filed a petition alleging that a detention order was passed under Section 129(1) of the U.P. GST Act by the respondent no. 2 on 30th August, 2018. Subsequently, a demand notice was issued on 4.2.2019, directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of &8377; 21,10,032. The petitioner claimed that they became aware of the demand on this date and requested the withdrawal of the notice as goods had been released following High Court orders. Appeal Rejection on Delay Grounds: The petitioner appealed against the order dated 14.9.2018, which quantified the demand against them. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay, with the appellate authority stating that it cannot be presumed the service on the driver was unknown to the appellant. The dismissal was based on the disbelief of the communication date of 4.2.2019. Tribunal Constitution Issue: The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 23.9.2019, citing the non-constitution of the Tribunal under the Act. It was argued that without such a body, the petitioner would be left without a remedy. Reference was made to a previous judgment highlighting the scope of service of orders on drivers of vehicles, deemed contrary to Section 169 of the Act. Service Contravention and Judgment: The Court noted that the order was served on the driver of the vehicle, a mode not prescribed under Section 169 of the Act. Consequently, the order dated 23.9.2019 was deemed erroneous and set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to hear the petitioner's appeal in accordance with the law and on merits promptly. In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed in line with the order setting aside the erroneous decision and providing directions for the proper adjudication of the petitioner's appeal.
|
