[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 service on registered email is sufficient service for the purpose of limitation. It held that holding that service was to be made by more than one modes would be absurd and defeat the purpose of the provision. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held “Upon perusal of Section 169 of the Act, we are of the view that in the event the service is made by way of the registered email, the same would be a good service and limitation would start from that date itself. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take a ground that the other modes of service that have been provided in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of the Act have not been followed. If one were to read that for service to be complete more than one mode as has been prescribed under Section 169 of the Act is required to be followed, the entire purpose of the provision would become absurd.” Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the order passed by Assistant Commissioner, CGST, Division -I, Noida under Section 74 of the CGST Act after the expiry of the limitation period. Petitioner pleaded that though the order had been served on the registered email id but was not sent by the registered post. The Court observed that Section 107 of the Act provides remedy of appeal against the order and limitation of 3 months is prescribed which extendable by a month if sufficient cause is shown. It held that service by any one of the modes in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) to Section 169 of CGST Act is sufficient service. Perusing various judgments, the Court held that while entertaining writ petitions against the orders which are appealable but the statutory limitation has expired, the Court must to complete justice by taking into account the statutory provisions and prohibitions. “The prescription of limitation when the statute commands that delay may be condoned to a maximum of one month further would come within the ambit and sweep of the policy of legislation. In such cases, Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act would apply, and accordingly, the Courts shall have no power to condone the delay of any further period even in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” Observing that the petitioner had approached the writ court after expiration of the limitation for appeal, the Court held that there was no sufficient cause given for non-filing of the appeal within time. It held that the jurisdiction of the writ Court cannot be invoked to defeat/ undermine the statute. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed. Case Title: Atlantis Intelligence Ltd. v. Union of India And 2 Others [WRIT TAX No. - 3608 of 2025] Click Here To Read/Download The Order

[S.169 CGST Act] Service On Registered Email Is Sufficient For Calculating Limitation Period: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

Tags