Goods & Services Tax (GST) in IndiaUploading of Order on GSTN Portal Constitutes Proper mode of Service

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras, in the case of Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, [Writ Petition Number 25666 of 2022] decided on 16.11.2022, held that uploading of order on GST portal constitutes as proper mode of service.

FACTS

The present case is a batch of 44 writ petitions challenging the orders passed by Central/Commercial Tax Authorities under Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) or Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “TNGST Act”) or orders of the Appellate  Authority rejecting appeals filed by them challenging orders cancelling registration on ground that the appeals have been filed beyond the statutory period of limitation.

The Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”) challenged order dated 9.02.2022 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) by which the registration of the Petitioner stood cancelled. The Petitioner failed to appeal against the impugned order within the statutory time limit  as the Petitioner was not intimated of the uploading of the impugned order on the GST portal.

ISSUES BEFORE THE HIGH COURT

1. Whether the High Court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ought to have entertain the condonation of delay of the appeal filed under section 107 of the CGST Act?

2. Whether uploading of orders on the GST portal constitutes proper mode of service?

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Petitioner contended that, Section 169 (2) of CGST Act, does not include the term “uploading” instead deploys, “tendered”, “published” or “affixed”. Thus, uploading of impugned order should not be taken to be proper mode of service.

The Petitioner further submitted that, the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961 contains a mandatory alert to be sent to the assesse either on it’s registered email ID or by SMS on its registered mobile number to communicate that such impugned order has been uploaded. s

The Respondent   averred that uploading of impugned order on the GST portal amounts to proper service under Section 169(d) of the CGST Act.

The Respondent  further stated that, the CGST Act requires the assesse to file return every month as a statutory requirement, and hence is expected to visit the portal once a month.

DECISION AND FINDINGS

The Hon’ble High Court while relying on the judgment of the case of Asst. Commissioner (CT) LTU v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd [CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2413/2020] passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of  Kesaav Ply N Laminates v. Asst. Commissioner (ST) [W.P.No.15679 of 2020], wherein a similar question of law was considered, observed that scope of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 cannot be curtailed by limitation prescribed under a statute. Thus,  the impugned order can be challenged on the ground that such  order has been passed without jurisdiction or in violation of the principles of natural justice.

However, if the Petitioner has failed to follow the statutory limitation so prescribed then such a challenge cannot be entertained by the court ‘as a matter of course’.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court observed that, making an order available on the common portal tantamount to tendering of the order to the recipient and also construe as proper mode of service.

Since the impugned order was uploaded on 9.02.2022 and the challenge was laid on 19.09.2022 which is beyond the period of limitation. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

AMLEGALS REMARKS

The Hon’ble Court contemplates on the question that whether the powers granted under Article 226 to the constitutional courts allow the court to entertain and consider the circumstances that have led to delay in challenging the assessment of the courts, even beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the statute.

The  powers enshrined to the High Court vide Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is elastic enough to accommodate challenges to such proceedings which goes beyond the statutory limit, though such discretion of the Hon’ble High Court must be exercised in caution and the situation causing the delay must be closely and minutely examined.

– Team AMLEGALS assisted by Ms. Dhwani Tandon