Proper service of tax assessment order under Section 169 upheld; taxpayer granted time to settle dues.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is a tax payer registered under the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act , 2017, and the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax, 2017. The grievance highlighted by the petitioner in this writ petition is against Ext.P5 notice of recovery issued to the petitioner for realizing the tax arrears along with interest and penalty payable in respect of the assessment year 2019- 20. Exhibit P3 is the order of assessment, and according to the petitioner, even before the said order, the admitted tax was paid. The fact that the petitioner had paid the tax is also evident from Ext.P3 order of assessment. However, the case of the petitioner is that despite the payment of tax, Ext.P5 demand has been issued, requiring the petitioner to pay Rs. 2,45,819/-.

2. Apart from the above, the petitioner has also raised a contention that, Ext.P3 order was not served upon the petitioner, and hence the petitioner was not aware of the same, until Ext.P5 demand notice was issued. Now the petitioner has lost the opportunity to challenge Ext.P3 by invoking the statutory remedy, as the time fixed for filing the appeal has expired, since the Ext.P3 order was passed on 09.08.2024. The challenge is raised in this writ petition against Ext.P5 in those circumstances. It is also the case of the petitioner that, as Ext.P3 was not served upon the petitioner, he could not avail the opportunity to settle the dispute by the Amnesty Scheme introduced by the Government in the year 2024.

3. I have heard Sri. Bharat Mohan, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. On carefully going through the contents of Ext.P5, it is seen that, even though the amount is described as arrears of tax in the said notice, on going through the figure of the amount noted in Ext.P5, it is discernible that the said amount is in fact the interest and penalty payable by the petitioner. The said fact is evident from Ext.P3 order of assessment, where the details of the amounts in arrears are specifically mentioned and the exact figure, i.e. Rs. 2,45,819/-, is specifically referred to in Ext.P3, as the amount payable towards interest and penalty. Therefore, Ext.P5 as such does not warrant any interference, and if at all there is any discrepancy, it is only in respect of the description of the amount, and this would not affect the liability of the petitioner. As far as the liability of the petitioner in respect of the interest and penalty as referred to above is concerned, by virtue of Ext.P3 order of assessment, the same has become final since no challenge has been raised. Of course, it is true that the petitioner has raised a contention that Ext.P3 was not properly communicated to the petitioner. However, it is an undisputed fact that Ext.P3 order was uploaded in the web portal, which is a sufficient complaint of service as contemplated under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The said position is settled by a Division Bench of this Court as well.

5. In such circumstances, the contention raised by the petitioner that the Ext P3 order was not properly served upon the petitioner also cannot be accepted. Similarly, the contention regarding the denial of opportunity to avail the Amnesty scheme also cannot be considered, in view of the fact that, the Government has given wide publicity to the same. It was for the petitioner to avail the benefit of the same, if she was interested in availing the same. No provision was brought to the notice of this court that insists that a notice of the Amnesty scheme should have been issued to the defaulter. In such circumstances, the said contention also cannot be accepted.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner sought a breathing ti