The phrase "communicated to such person" appearing in section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would imply that the order be necessarily brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost though a delay of more than a month would in all such cases be such as may itself not warrant such strict construction.
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Appeal —–The petitioner challenged order passed by the appellate authority on 29-9-2020 whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed, as barred by limitation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly the penalty order passed under section 129 dated 6-9-2018 was served on the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner against whom that order was passed. In the appeal reliance was placed on an earlier order of this Court passed in Patel Hardware v. Commissioner, State GST [Writ Tax No. 1388 of 2018, dated 10-12-2018] wherein it was held that the phrase "communicated to such person" appearing in section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would imply that the order be necessarily brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost. The court observed that the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25-5-2018.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition for the reasons contained in the order dated 10-12-2018 passed in Patel Hardware's case.
The phrase "communicated to such person" appearing in section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would imply that the order be necessarily brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost though a delay of more than a month would in all such cases be such as may itself not warrant such strict construction.
Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 — Appeal —–The petitioner challenged order passed by the appellate authority on 29-9-2020 whereby the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed, as barred by limitation. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that undisputedly the penalty order passed under section 129 dated 6-9-2018 was served on the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner against whom that order was passed. In the appeal reliance was placed on an earlier order of this Court passed in Patel Hardware v. Commissioner, State GST [Writ Tax No. 1388 of 2018, dated 10-12-2018] wherein it was held that the phrase "communicated to such person" appearing in section 107(1) of the Act commend a construction that would imply that the order be necessarily brought to the knowledge of the person who is likely to be aggrieved. Unless such construction is offered, the right of appeal would itself be lost. The court observed that the penalty order had not been communicated to the petitioner prior to the date 25-5-2018.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court allowed the petition for the reasons contained in the order dated 10-12-2018 passed in Patel Hardware's case.