9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls were contrary to the instructions of the Appellant and also the medical records of the proprietor brought on record by the Appellant which shows medical condition of the proprietor, this Tribunal is of the opinion that the Appellant should not suffer for the lapses on the part of the Chartered Accountant who drafted the appeals, contrary to the instructions of the Appellant. Once the date of dispatch of the Adjudication orders is much after the date disclosed in the appeals and the Adjudication orders were admittedly dispatched to the old address, the inescapable conclusion is that the Appellant became aware of the Adjudication orders only when the envelopes containing the same were provided to the proprietor by Shri S.K Jigwani, owner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the two appeals are heard and decided together by this order. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the two appeals are that Order-in-Original No. 26/DC/CGST/GZB/21-22 dated 31.03.2022 was passed by the Dy. Commissioner (AE), CGST, Commissionerate Ghaziabad, confirming demand of service tax amounting to Rs 5,01,828/- along with interest and penalties for F.Y 2014-15. Similarly, Order-in-Original No. 27/DC/CGST/GZB/21-22 dated 31.03.2022 for F.Y 2015-16, was passed confirming demand of service tax of Rs 5,50,928/- along with interest and penalties. The two orders were challenged by the Appellant in separate appeals before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) which were filed on 17.05.2024 wherein the date of service of the two orders was disclosed as 19. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notices [SCN] were issued on 30.12.2020 and 22.04.2021 addressed to the old address, the Adjudication orders dated 31.03.2022 were also addressed to and dispatched to the old address and it was only when in April 2024, the proprietor met the owner of the old premises, he came to know about the Adjudication orders for the very first time and accordingly he informed the entire facts to the Chartered Accountant and instructed him to file appeals by mentioning the entire facts but the Chartered Accountant not only failed to mention the correct facts but on the contrary stated completely incorrect facts regarding date of service of Adjudication orders on 19.04.2022, which date was even prior to the date of dispatch of the two orders. The ld. Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued Service Tax registration in Form ST-2 dated 14.01.2009 which mentions the address 221A, Rachna Sector-3A, Vaishali Ind Estate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh ( old address ) and upon enforcement of GST regime, the Appellant migrated to GST and was issued registration certificate in Form GST REG0-06 dated 28.07.2018 which also mentions the same old address. Thus, there is no dispute that till 28.07.2018 the Appellant was operating from the same old address. 9. However, the Appellant claims to have shifted to Gyan Khand-1, SF-01, Plot No. 27, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201 014 ( new address ) sometime in the month of December 2020 and also claims that after getting the PAN of the proprietor updated, amendment in registration was so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l as Shri S.K Jigwani was only the owner of the old premises and there is no material on record to hold him the agent of the Appellant. 13. However, this is not the end of the matter. The Appellant while filing the two appeals, not only himself disclosed the date of service of Adjudication orders as 19.04.2022 but also requested for condonation of delay. On perusal of record, it clearly transpires that the two orders were dispatched by the Department much after 19.04.2022, which fact is also corroborated from the contents of the letter dated 09.12.2024 of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division-VI, Ghaziabad. Thus, 19.04.2022 cannot be the date of service and this averment in the appeals was clearly contrary to the material available on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onclusion is that the Appellant became aware of the Adjudication orders only when the envelopes containing the same were provided to the proprietor by Shri S.K Jigwani, owner of the old premises. In view of these facts supported by Affidavit and also in absence of any contrary material on record, the inescapable conclusion is that the two appeals were filed within the statutory time period and were therefore not barred by limitation. The impugned orders are, therefore, not sustainable and consequently set-aside. 17. Both the appeals are, therefore, allowed by way of remand, with direction to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) to hear and decide the appeals on merits, without raising any objection on limitation, after giving opportunity of heari ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
