High Court | Order served on driver is not service of order at all | Seizure of Goods

Jindal Pipes Limited. v. State of U.P.

The Movement of Goods was for 980 Kilometers (Kms) however E-Way Bill stated 90 Kms. Goods seized after intercepted on 20^th, August 2018.

The petitioner deposited amount towards Tax and penalty and got its goods released. The penalty amount was reduced when the order was passed on 21^st August, 2018. An appeal was filed on 6^th, March 2019 against the order dated 21^st August, 2018. The said appeal was dismissed as having been filed beyond limitation prescribed.

The Order was served on the driver of the vehicle. The order was neither served on the consignee nor on the consignor.

Learned counsel relied upon a judgment of this Court reported in S/S. Patel Hardware v. Commissioner of State 2019 (21) GSTN 145 wherein it has been specifically held that the order by which tax was levied and the penalty was imposed had to be served upon a person who was likely to be aggrieved by the order.

It specifically holds that the driver was not a “person aggrieved” to whom the order ought to have been communicated and, therefore, the order definitely was not served upon a person who was likely to be aggrieved and, therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal which was filed on 6.3.2019 was well within the limitation provided by section 107 of the Act.

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, I am of the view that the order was served on the driver and, therefore, was definitely not served on a person who would have been aggrieved by the order and, therefore, the service on the driver was no service at all.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. The order dated 21.8.2019 is quashed. The appeal shall now be entertained as having been filed within the limitation provided under section 107 of the Act.