The order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act. Consequently, the order is held to be erroneous and is set aside accordingly.
Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Service of the Notice/Order ---The petitioner challenged detention order dated 30th August, 2018 under Section 129(1) of the Act. On 4.2.2019, respondents had issued a demand notice directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,10,032/-. That an ex-parte order MOV-09 has been passed on 14.9.2018, whereby the demand has been quantified, the said order was served upon the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner, the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the said order. The petitioner appealed against the order on 3.5.2019, which was rejected on account of delay alone and recording that it cannot be presumed that the service on the driver was not known to the appellant. The petitioner relied on the judgment dated 1.12.2020 passed by this Court in M/S Singh Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade- 2 and 2 Others, wherein the Court had considered the scope of service of the order on the driver of the vehicle and held the same to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 169 of the Act. The court observed that the order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 23.9.2019. Further, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits.
The order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act. Consequently, the order is held to be erroneous and is set aside accordingly.
Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 – Service of the Notice/Order ---The petitioner challenged detention order dated 30th August, 2018 under Section 129(1) of the Act. On 4.2.2019, respondents had issued a demand notice directing him to deposit a sum of Rs. 21,10,032/-. That an ex-parte order MOV-09 has been passed on 14.9.2018, whereby the demand has been quantified, the said order was served upon the driver of the vehicle and not on the petitioner, the petitioner was not having any knowledge of the said order. The petitioner appealed against the order on 3.5.2019, which was rejected on account of delay alone and recording that it cannot be presumed that the service on the driver was not known to the appellant. The petitioner relied on the judgment dated 1.12.2020 passed by this Court in M/S Singh Traders Vs. Additional Commissioner Grade- 2 and 2 Others, wherein the Court had considered the scope of service of the order on the driver of the vehicle and held the same to be in contravention of the provisions of Section 169 of the Act. The court observed that the order was served upon the driver of the vehicle, which is not included in any mode of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the Act.
Held that:- The Hon’ble High Court set aside the order dated 23.9.2019. Further, directed the Appellate Authority to hear the appeal of the petitioner in accordance with law and on merits.