2025 (2) TMI 845 - HC - GST

Non-service of order - impugned order is appealable or not - petitioner came to know about the impugned Order-in-Original only through bank and notices at no point of time were served on the petitioner - Section 37C of the Central Excise Act 1944 - HELD THAT - A conjoint reading of Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act shows that the argument of the learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC has substantial force. The provision relating to service of notice provided under the CGST Act can be applied in view of Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act in relation to any other existing law which includes the 1944 Act. Thus we are unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since Section 37C of the 1944 Act is silent about the electronic mode of service through e-mail etc. the said mode is impermissible or not acceptable. So far the order of the CESTAT Allahabad in M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited 2019 (11) TMI 1204 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD is concerned the said order only gives a reference to the order of the High Court of Madras in OSA Shipping Pvt. Ltd. 2015 (10) TMI 982 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . But the said paragraph does not deal with the aspect of the validity of service of notice through e-mail mode. Apart from that in the said case the notices etc. were issued before the CGST Act came into being. Thus that order is even otherwise of no assistance. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of preferring an appeal. The petitioner can avail the said remedy. Conclusion - The petitioner is directed to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay with the appellate authority considering it in accordance with the law. The time spent before the Court would not count towards the limitation period for the appeal. Petition disposed off.

Summary

The Telangana High Court considered a case where the petitioner challenged Order-in-Original No.146/2023-ST dated 29.09.2023. The main issue revolved around the mode of service of notices and the validity of electronic service through email. The petitioner argued that since notices were not directly served and were only known through the bank, the writ petition should be entertained directly. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the communication through email was valid and in compliance with the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act).The Court examined Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which outlines the methods of service of decisions, orders, and summons. The petitioner argued that email service was not recognized under this provision. However, the respondent relied on Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act, which allow for electronic communication for recovery of arrears of tax under previous laws. The Court found merit in the respondent's argument, stating that the CGST Act provisions could be applied to the 1944 Act.The Court also referenced a Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) order and noted that it did not address the validity of email service. Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioner had been served a notice under the CGST Act, supporting the continuation of adjudication proceedings under the new Act.Ultimately, the Court decided to dismiss the writ petitions, emphasizing that the petitioner had the option to appeal the decision. The Court instructed the petitioner to file an appeal with an application for condonation of delay, with the appellate authority considering it in accordance with the law. The time spent before the Court would not count towards the limitation period for the appeal. No costs were awarded, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.In conclusion, the Telangana High Court upheld the validity of email service under the CGST Act for recovery of arrears of tax under previous laws, dismissing the writ petitions and directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of filing an appeal.