Service of order to the third party and not served on aggrieved party, shall not be regarded as a proper service of order.

Facts: In this matter, Goods were being transported from Ghaziabad to Ghazipur on 20 August 2018 where upon interception of consignment at Kanpur, it was discovered that the distance in E-way bill, generated by Consignor, has been stated as 90 kms which was in fact 980 kms. Goods were seized under Section 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 which were subsequently released upon payment of tax and penalty by the Consignor. Accordingly, an order was passed on 21 August 2019 against which petitioner filed an appeal on 06 March 2019. However, the appeal was dismissed on the sole ground, being appeal filed beyond the period of limitation.

Counsel of the petitioner while placing reliance on the judgment of same Court in the matter of S/S. Patel Hardware v. Commr. of State reported in 2019 (21) GSTN 145 pleaded that the impugned order was served on the driver of the vehicle, who was the driver of transport agency, and therefore, it was neither served on consignor nor on the consignee. It was pleaded that driver was not the ‘person aggrieved' to whom the order has been communicated and thus, appeal was filed within the limitation prescribed.

Held: The Hon'ble High Court held that service of order by proper office on driver of vehicle is not a valid service as not served on the person who would have been aggrieved by the order. It can be clearly stated that the driver was not a person aggrieved to whom the order ought to have been communicated and, therefore, the order was not served upon a person who was likely to be aggrieved.

Further, the court directed the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal of assessee well within the time limit and the same shall now be entertained.

To read the complete judgment 2020 Taxo.online 49