9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 1310 - HC - GSTMaintainability of appeal - time limitation - appeals filed by the petitioner beyond the statutory period of limitation - HELD THAT - The issue as to whether the service of Order through web portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (GSST) Act, 2017, has to be considered as sufficient or not has to be decided only in W.P.No.21081 of 2023 2023 (8) TMI 1300 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Since the orders were received by the petitioner through RPAD in all cases except in W.P.No.21081 of 2023, there is no merits in these writ petitions. Petition dismissed.
Issues:
The judgment deals with the aggrievement by the petitioner due to impugned Assessment Orders beyond the statutory period of limitation, the sufficiency of service of Order through web portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (GSST) Act, 2017, and the dismissal of writ petitions based on the receipt of orders by the petitioner through RPAD. Impugned Assessment Orders: The petitioner contested Assessment Orders dated 27.04.2023 for the Assessment Years 2017-2018 to 2020-2021 and Assessment Orders dated 27.06.2023 for the Assessment Years 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, which were rejected due to appeals filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. Service of Order Through Web Portal: The judgment raised the issue of whether the service of Order through web portal under Section 169(1)(d) of the Central Goods and Services Tax (GSST) Act, 2017, is considered sufficient for reckoning limitation. This matter was specifically linked to W.P.No.21081 of 2023. Receipt of Orders via RPAD: It was noted that the petitioner received Assessment Orders through RPAD in all cases except for the Assessment Order dated 06.08.2022 challenged in W.P.No.21081 of 2023. This fact played a crucial role in the decision-making process. Decision and Dismissal of Writ Petitions: Except for W.P.No.21081 of 2023, all other writ petitions were deemed liable to be dismissed as the orders were received by the petitioner through RPAD. The judgment cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada and others Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC Online SC 440, as a basis for dismissal. No costs were imposed, and connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions were closed accordingly.
|
