The mere sending of the Order does not imply the service and receipt of the Order.
On MS. Ghadshyam Enterprises v Commissioner Central Tax on Goods and Services [Service Tax Appeal No. 50783 of 2020 (SM) dated August 18, 2021], MS. Ghadshyam Companies (“The Appellant”) filed an appeal to attack the Appeal order No. 107 / ST dated March 5, 2020 by means of which the Complainant’s appeal against the Original order (“OIO”) N ° 69/2018 dated November 16, 2018 he has been fired on prescription.
In the present case, the appellant alleged that they have been registered to hire labor /supply agency Service. However, a Show notice of cause (“SCN”) No. 2366 On November 23, 2017, they were notified proposing the recovery of service tax along with interest and penalties. It was further alleged that said SCN was not received by the Appellant until the aforementioned OIO was issued against them and that said order had also not reached the Appellant’s knowledge until the recovery procedure was initiated against them. Thereafter, the Appellant requested the copy of the OIO in a video letter dated February 20, 2019. The Appellant received said copy on February 20, 2019. Furthermore, the Appellant alleged that he appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals ) (“The Defendant”) on April 18, 2019. It was alleged that since the appeal was filed within 2 months of receipt of the OIO copy, the Respondent has wrongly denied the appeal as time-barred.
Unlike the allegations made by the Appellant, the Respondent argued that the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner had explicitly communicated the OIO’s dispatch on the date of said order and that there was no delay on his part.
After examining all the facts and evidence, the Customs, Special Taxes and Services Court (“CESTAT“), New Delhi held that the mere shipment of the order cannot be regarded as Service. The period of 2 months for the presentation of the appeal must be counted not from the date of the announced order but from the date of receipt of said order by the Appellant in terms of Section 35 of the Central special tax Law of 1944. Therefore, the appeal was accepted in favor of the appellant.
(The author can be contacted at [email protected])
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed are strictly those of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The content of this article is for informational purposes only and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or a recommendation for a signature. Neither the author nor the firm and its affiliates accept any responsibility for any loss or damage of any kind arising from the information in this article or for actions taken on the basis of it. Furthermore, no part of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose unless authorized in writing and we reserve the legal right for any infringement in the use of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
To read the official order, download the PDF shown below: