HIGH COURT OF KERALA
A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
SUNIL KUMAR K – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE TAX OFFICER-I KOTTARAKKARA – Respondent
WA 938/2024
CGST/SGST - Assessment Order - Sections 146, 169 - The court held that once a common portal is notified under Section 146 of the CGST Act, any communication of orders, notices, etc. can be made through the notified portal as per Section 169, even if the specific purpose of uploading orders is not mentioned in Section 146.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a dealer under the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, approached the writ court challenging an assessment order communicated to him through the common portal notified under Section 146. The appellant argued that the portal could only be used for the specific purposes mentioned in Section 146, and not for uploading orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Section 169 allows for communication of orders, notices, etc. through the common portal notified under Section 146, even if the specific purpose of uploading orders is not mentioned in Section 146. The court also noted that the notification under Section 146 had been amended to include all functions provided under the CGST Rules, 2017.
Issues: Whether the common portal notified under Section 146 of the CGST Act can be used for communicating assessment orders, even if the specific purpose of uploading orders is not mentioned in Section 146.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a common portal is notified under Section 146, any communication of orders, notices, etc. can be made through the notified portal as per Section 169, even if the specific purpose of uploading orders is not mentioned in Section 146.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was dismissed.
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The petitioner in WP(C).No. 6240 of 2024 is the appellant herein aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2024 of the learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition.
2. Briefly stated the facts necessary for the disposal of the Writ Appeal are as follows:
3. The learned Single Judge who considered the matter found that albeit belatedly, the petitioner had downloaded the assessment order from the very same portal, and therefore, the delay occasioned in retrieving the assessment order from the portal was a predicament that the appellant found himself in because of his own latches. The learned Single Judge, therefore, relegated the appellant to his alternate remedy of filing an appeal in terms of Section 107 of the GST Act. The Writ Petition was dismissed with the aforesaid finding.
4. Before us, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Bobby John, that the notification of the portal in terms of Section 146 was only for the purposes of facilitating registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation, and settlement of integrated tax, electronic waybill, and for carrying out such other functions as may be prescribed. He argued that in as much as the uploading of orders is not a purpose specifically mentioned in , the common portal cannot be used for such purposes.
5. attractive though the submissions may appear at first blush, we are afraid, we cannot accept the same. a reading of section 169 of the act makes it abundantly clear that any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under the act or rules may be served on the assessee, inter alia, by making it available on the common portal. we are of the view that this statutory provision has to be read along with the provisions of section 146, and when so read, it would mean that once a common portal is notified for the purposes of the act, then any of the actions such as registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, etc., as also the communication of notices, orders, etc., as provided for under the statute can be effected through the notified portal. we have also been shown a copy of the notification amending the earlier notification issued under section 146 of the cgst act so as to make it abundantly clear that the notification of the common portal can also be, inter alia, for all functions provided under the cgst rules, 2017. the said amendment has also been given retrospective effect from 22.06.2017. thus, in any view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned single judge that is impugned in the writ appeal. the writ appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.