GST Act | Communication Of Order To Assessee’s Advocate Deemed Service To Assessee: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that service of an order upon the advocate of an assessee will be deemed service for the purposes of the GST Act as the advocate is an authorized representative of the assessee.

Perusing Section 107 (Appeals to Appellate Authority) and Section 169 (Service of Notice in Certain Circumstances) of the UPGST Act, Justice Piyush Agrawal held,

“From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is evidently clear that the appeal against an order can be preferred within a period of three months from the date of communication. Section 169 (1)(a) of the UPGST Act provides that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely, by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person. Therefore, it is evident that the order communicated on an Advocate will be deemed service upon the petitioner.”

Factual Background:

The petitioner’s goods were intercepted. Since the E-way bill was not present with documents, the goods were detained and a notice was issued under section 129(3) of the UPGST Act directing the petitioner to deposit the tax & penalty.

Thereafter, the goods were released pursuant to an order of the High Court. An order imposing tax amounting to Rs. 3,06,893/- and a penalty amounting to Rs. 3,06,893/- was passed which was appealed before the First Appellate Authority along with a delay condonation application. However, the same was rejected on the grounds of limitation.

Counsel for Petitioner argued that the original penalty order under section 129(3) of the UP GST Act was received on 26.06.2019 by the erstwhile local counsel of the assessee, who neither informed him of the order nor filed an appeal within limitation. It was prayed that the assessee should not face adverse consequences due to a mistake on the part of the counsel. An appeal was filed on the same day as obtaining the certified copy of the order.

Further, Counsel for Petitioner relied on Section 107 of the UP GST Act to state that an appeal can be preferred within three months from the date of communication of the order. Since he came to know of the order on 26.06.2019, the appeal was within time. Following the mode of services prescribed under Section 169 of the UP GST Act, the order should have been served upon the petitioner and not his counsel.

Counsel for the petitioner emphasised that the date of communication, as referred to in section 107 of the UP GST Act, is the date when, for the first time, the petitioner came to know about the impugned order and being aggrieved on the very day, preferred an appeal, which has illegally been rejected as beyond limitation.

While defending the order of the First Appellate Authority, Counsel for Respondent argued that under Section 169(1)(a) of the UPGST Act, service on the advocate of the assessee is sufficient service as the advocate represents the assessee and appears on behalf of him.

Verdict:

The Court held that Section 169(1)(a) of the UP GST Act clearly provides that service of an order, decision, notice or summon can be made upon an advocated or a tax practitioner holding authority of the assessee to appear in proceedings on his behalf. Since the order was served upon the counsel for the petitioner who had appeared before the authority on the same day on which the order was passed, it will deemed to be served.

Further, the Court observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the mode and the date on which he came to know of the said order. The fact that a certified copy of the order was obtained on the date of filing the appeal is not sufficient to demonstrate that the petitioner had no knowledge of the order.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

Case Title: M/S Manoj Steel Traders vS. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286 [WRIT TAX No. - 391 of 2021]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 286

Click Here To Read/Download Order