Pranav B Prem

The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has taken a stern view against the Central GST authorities for dispatching crucial notices to an outdated address, which ultimately led to the dismissal of an appeal on limitation grounds. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the principles of natural justice were not followed and the Revenue acted in a partisan manner.

Also Read: CESTAT Orders Refund of Anti-Dumping Duty Paid by Mistake in Self-Assessment; Says Such Payment Has No Legal Sanction

The matter came before the Tribunal in an appeal filed by Harsimran Kaur against an order dated March 6, 2024, passed by the Commissioner of CGST & CX (Appeals)-I, Mumbai. The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed her case as time-barred, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur [2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC)], observing that the original adjudication order was passed on March 7, 2022, and dispatched on March 9, 2022. It was contended that the appellant filed the appeal only in December 2023—well beyond the prescribed time.

However, the appellant submitted that she never received the show cause notice dated December 30, 2020, nor any hearing memo. She only became aware of the adjudication order when she received an email from the Range Superintendent on December 12, 2023. She immediately acted and filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who, however, rejected it, holding that there was no evidence to accept her claim of the late receipt of the order.

The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, found that the address used for service of the show cause notice and the adjudication order was incorrect. According to the appellant, although her ST-2 registration originally recorded her address as "16, Arthur Bunder Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005", she had formally applied for an address change on April 1, 2015, by filing Form ST-1. The new address, "5th Floor, Podar Chambers, 12, S.A. Brelvi Road, Fort, Mumbai 400 001", was never updated in the ST-2 registration certificate by the department.

The Tribunal noted that the appellant’s submission was supported by records and that the department failed to issue a revised registration. It was further observed that her registered email address—on record since January 27, 2005—was not used for serving the show cause notice or personal hearing memo. Instead, it was only used much later, in December 2023, during recovery proceedings. A copy of the recovery email, dated December 12, 2023, was placed on record and formed the basis for the appellant’s discovery of the order.

The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner (Appeals), being a senior appellate authority, ought to have considered these vital facts and acted fairly. It further held that the original authority passed the adjudication order without receiving any reply to the show cause notice—a clear indication that the notice was never served. As the Tribunal put it, “the conduct of Revenue appears partisan,” especially given that the correct email address was known to the department all along.

Also Read: CESTAT Rules, Leasing Out Land For 90 Years Against One-Time Payment Constitutes Transfer Of Immovable Property, Exempt From Service Tax

The Tribunal concluded that there was a failure to observe the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was not afforded a proper opportunity to respond. It found that the delay in filing the appeal was within the condonable period and that the appeal was dismissed without justification. Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, restoring the appellant’s right to contest the adjudication.

Appearance

Shri R.D. Wagley, Advocate, for the Appellant

Shri Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner, Authorised Representative, for the Respondent

Cause Title: Harsimran Kaur V. Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South

Case No: Service Tax Appeal No. 85751 of 2024

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar [Member (Technical)]