In a recent ruling, a Single bench of the Allahabad High Court noted that not informing the taxpayer or their legal representative, whether it’s an advocate or a tax expert, cannot be used as a reason to excuse a delay in filing an appeal when the petitioner doesn’t show how they became aware of the order and subsequently filed the appeal with a different advocate.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agarwal stated that the service of the order to an advocate or a tax practitioner shall be treated as valid service.
The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Ghaziabad by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.
The petitioner’s vehicle was intercepted by the GST officials. The officers found that e-waybill – 01 was not available with documents and consequently detained the goods and a notice was issued under section 129(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax (UPGST) Act directing the petitioner to deposit the tax and penalty.
Aggrieved against the order dated 18.03.2018, the petitioner filed Writ Tax, in which an interim order was passed releasing the goods of the petitioner, along with the vehicle. Ultimately, on 28.03.2018, the GST officer passed an order imposing tax amounting to Rs. 3,06,893/- and penalty amounting to Rs. 3,06,893/-.
The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the original penalty order under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act was received on 26.06.2019; whereas, the original copy of the order was received by the erstwhile counsel, who did not file the appeal and therefore, the mistake on the part of the counsel, should not be treated adversely against the petitioner.
He further submitted that the order dated 28.03.2018 was served upon the local counsel, Anil Jain, who did not communicate the said order to the petitioner. Therefore, an application was moved for getting the certified copy of the order on 26.06.2019 by another counsel, namely, Shri Rajeev Kumar Singh and on the same day, the appeal was preferred.
The court noted that Section 169 (1)(a) of the UPGST Act outlined various methods for delivering decisions, orders, summons, notices, or other communications. These methods include handing it directly to the recipient, using a messenger or courier, and delivering it to the addressee, taxable person, their manager, authorized representative, or an advocate or tax practitioner allowed to act on the taxable person’s behalf during the proceedings. Consequently, it is clear that serving an order on an Advocate will be considered as valid service on the petitioner.
The court also highlighted that when it came to determining how and through which means the petitioner learned about the order issued on March 28, 2018, by June 26, 2019, the petitioner’s advocate was unable to provide an answer. According to the bench, the appeal is silent at this point.
The writ petition was rejected solely because the petitioner’s counsel did not provide any information regarding how the petitioner became aware of the order and subsequently filed the appeal with a different legal representative.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
