The Jharkhand High Court held that delay in filing the appeal due to the issuance of notice on incorrect address and rejection of appeal memo was not tenable
Global Construction, the petitioners challenged the garnishee notice dated 30th September 2021 issued under Section 79 of the Central Goods & Services Tax Act, 2017 whereby the respondent Deputy Commissioner (Preventive), Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi had frozen the bank account of the petitioners.
It was submitted that the documents obtained under RTI (Annexure-11) on 24th January 2022 along with the relevant page of the dispatch register from the office of the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ranchi shows that though the track consignment report of speed post showed item delivered on the applicant on 21st December 2018, the copy of the relevant page of dispatch register at serial no.5 concerning the petitioner address
The address of the petitioner is M/s Global Construction, Qr. No.1304, Sector-1/C, Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro (Jharkhand) 827001 as is also apparent from the appellate order and the order in original. It was contended that the booking journal of the speed post/dispatch register clearly shows that the address was not correct or incomplete. As such, no presumption of service of the order in original could be drawn.
The Court observed that the appeal has been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods & Services Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi only on the point of limitation since it was preferred after almost 2 years and 9 months on 29.09.2021. Under Section 85 of the Finance Act, 1994 the statutory limit of 60 days is prescribed for preferring an appeal.
A Single member bench Justice Deepak Roshan observed that notices were issued on the incorrect or inadequate address and that too of the Proprietor of M/s Global Construction. The presumption of proof of service of notice is a rebuttable piece of evidence and the track consignment report having an incomplete address of the petitioner, valid service of notice of the order in original cannot be presumed.
The Court held that the grounds for rejection of the memo of appeal are not tenable on facts and set aside. While allowing the petition, the matter was remanded to the appellate authority to consider afresh by the law.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
