Venu R K Infra VS Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging the best judgment order dated 10.05.2019 under Section 62(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in proceeding No. ACCT/LGSTO-051/ASMT/2019-20, as well as the subsequent order dated 6.3.2020 issued by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6, Bengaluru, referred to as the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner’s appeal under Section.

The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the best judgment order dated 10.05.2019 under Section 62(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the Act) in proceeding No.ACCT/LGSTO-051/ASMT/2019-20 and the subsequent order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6, Bengaluru (the Appellate Authority), dismissing the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period. The rejection was based on the claim that the best judgment order dated 10.05.2019 was served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail on 10.05.2019 and in person on 14.05.2019. However, the petitioner denies receiving a copy of the order dated 10.05.2019 via registered e-mail and argues that the Appellate Authority could not have concluded that the order was served merely because the first respondent claims it was sent by e-mail. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, referring to the provisions of Section 169 of the Act, explains that the Department can only rely on the deeming provisions in Section 169(2) and (3) regarding the date of service if the service is carried out in any of the modes specified under Section 169(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f). However, when the asserted mode of service is either under sub-clause (c) or (d) of Section 169(1), which provides for service by registered e-mail, the petitioner argues that these conditions were not met and hence the service was not appropriately rendered.

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging the best judgment order dated May 10, 2019, under Section 62(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in proceeding No.ACCT/LGSTO-051/ASMT/2019-20, and the subsequent order dated March 6, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6, Bengaluru, referred to as the Appellate Authority, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Sri B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues that the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act was rejected because it was filed beyond the condonable period, with the Appellate Authority stating that the best judgment order dated May 10, 2019, was served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail on May 10, 2019, and in person on May 14, 2019. However, the petitioner claims not to have received the order dated May 10, 2019, via registered e-mail and argues that the Appellate Authority should not have assumed that the order was served simply because the first respondent claimed it was sent by e-mail. The petitioner’s counsel, referring to Section 169 of the Act, elaborates that the Department could rely on the deeming provisions in Section 169(2) and (3) regarding the date of service only if the service is in any of the modes specified under Section 169(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f). When the mode of service is either under sub-clauses (c) or (d) of Section 169(1), which involve service by registered e-mail or by uploading on the web portal, there cannot be any deemed service, and the Department must prove that the notice was indeed sent to the registered e-mail and uploaded on the web portal. In this case, where it is alleged that the service of the order dated May 10, 2019, was by registered e-mail, the first respondent has not provided any details. Furthermore, the counsel contends that the Appellate Authority concluded that a physical copy of the order dated May 10, 2019, was served on the petitioner on May 14, 2019, under acknowledgment, but the petitioner claims that a physical copy of the order was not served on the Directors of the Company or its authorized representative. The details of the service of the physical copy of the order dated May 10, 2019, apart from a reference in the acceptance column of Form GST APL-02, are not provided in the impugned order dated March 6, 2020.

The petitioner has filed a petition challenging the best judgment order dated May 10, 2019, under Section 62(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in proceeding No.ACCT/LGSTO-051/ASMT/2019-20 and the subsequent order dated March 6, 2020, passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6, Bengaluru, which dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act. The petitioner’s counsel, Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, argues that the appeal was rejected because it was filed beyond the allowable period, based on the claim that the best judgment order was served on the petitioner’s registered email on May 10, 2019, and in person on May 14, 2019. However, the petitioner contends that they did not receive the order via email and disputes the Appellate Authority’s conclusion that the order was served merely because the respondent asserted it was sent by email. The counsel further explains that under Section 169 of the Act, the Department can only rely on the deeming provisions of service if the service was made using specific methods outlined in Section 169(1)(a), (b), (e), or (f). If the service is claimed to be made via email or web portal, as per sub-clauses (c) or (d), the Department must prove the notice was actually sent. In this case, there is no evidence provided by the first respondent regarding the email service. Additionally, the counsel argues that the Appellate Authority’s claim of physical service on May 14, 2019, is unfounded since no physical copy was served on the company’s directors or authorized representative. The details of the physical service are only mentioned in the acceptance column of Form GST APL – 02 and are not detailed in the impugned order dated March 6, 2020. The counsel also defends the petitioner’s assertion of receiving the order on November 7, 2019, by referring to Annexures-B and C, indicating the Department canceled the petitioner’s registration on September 4, 2019, for not filing returns for six months, listing the tax dues as ‘Nil.’ The registration was later revoked on October 24, 2019. The counsel argues that if there were outstanding dues from the best judgment assessment, they would have been mentioned in the cancellation order, and the absence of such information led the petitioner to believe there was no reassessment order. On the other hand, Sri. Hemakumar, the learned Additional Government Advocate, argues on behalf of the authorities.

Download PDF:

For Reference Visit:

Read Another Case Law:

GST Case Law: