P. Venu Gopal Reddy vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6
(Karnataka High Court, Karnataka)

Case Law
Petitioner / Applicant
P. Venu Gopal Reddy
The Joint Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes (Appeals) – 6
Karnataka High Court
Nov 23, 2020
Order No.
WRIT PETITION NO. 11599/2020 (T-RES)
TR Citation
2020 (11) TR 3598
Related HSN Chapter/s
Related HSN Code


The petitioner has filed this petition impugning the best judgment order dated 09.07.2019 under Section 62[1] of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [for short ‘the Act’] in proceeding No.ACCT/LGSTO-065/ASMT/2019-20 and the later order dated 6.3.2020 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals] – 6, Bengaluru, [the first respondent – for short, ‘the Appellate Authority’] dismissing the petitioner’s appeal in GST.AP.287/19-20 under Section 107 of the Act.

2. Sri. B.G. Chidananda Urs, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Act is rejected on the ground that the appeal is filed beyond even the condonable period holding that the copy of the best Judgment order dated 09.07.2019 is served on the petitioner’s registered e-mail on 09.07.2019. However, the petitioner has not received copy of the order dated 09.07.2019 on the registered e-mail, and in any event, the Appellate Authority could not have concluded that a copy of the order dated 09.07.2019 is served on the petitioner only because the first respondent asserts that a copy of the order dated 09.07.2019 is sent by e-mail. The petitioner came to know about the impugned order only after its Bankers informed the petitioner about the order, and on verification, the petitioner is served with a physical copy of the impugned order dated 09.07.2019 under acknowledgement on 07.11.2019.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the provisions of Section 169 of the Act elaborates that the Department could rely upon the deeming provisions in Section 169[2] and [3] of the Act as regards the date of service only if the service is in any of the modes contemplated under Section 169[1][1], [b], [e] or [f]. But when the asserted mode of service is either under sub-clause [c] or [d] of Section 169[1] of the Act, which provide for service by registered email or by uploading on the web portal, there cannot be any deemed service. The Department must establish that notice is indeed sent to the registered e-mail and uploaded on the web portal. The Appellate Authority, in the present case where it is alleged that service of the order dated 09.07.2019 is by registered email, has failed to consider that the first respondent has not furnished any details in this regard.

4. The provisions of Section 107 of the Act is categorical that a person aggrieved by any decision or order under the Act may prefer an appeal to the prescribed authority within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person with a further condonable period of thirty days. It would therefore be necessary for the Appellate Authority, while dismissing an appeal on the ground that it is filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the further condonable period, to decide on the limitation considering the circumstances relied upon by the parties to assert a particular date as the date of communication.

5. In the present case, the Department asserts the date of communication as 09.07.2019 where as the petitioner asserts as 7.11.2019. The impugned order does not indicate that the Appellate Authority has considered the controversy in this regard. The Appellate Authority, given the Scheme of the Act prescribing definite timelines for preferring an appeal and the lapse of right of appeal thereafter, would have to consider the circumstances asserted. It would be needless to observe that the Appellate Authority while considering the question of the date of communication as contemplated under Section 107 of the Act would also have to decide on the merits of the case. Therefore the following:


[a] The writ petition is disposed of.

[b] The impugned order dated 09.07.2019 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals] – 6, Bengaluru, is set aside and the proceeding in No. ACCT/LGSTO-065/ASMT/2019-20 restored to the board of the Appellate Authority i.e., the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [Appeals] – 6, Bengaluru for reconsideration in the light of the observations made herein.

[c] The petitioner shall appear before the Appellate Authority without any further notice on 14.12.2020.

In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

  • Home
  • /
  • caselaw
  • /
  • p venu gopal reddy vs the joint commissioner of commercial taxes appeals 6 karnataka high court

BUSY is a simple, yet powerful GST / VAT compliant Business Accounting Software that has everything you need to grow your business.

phone Sales & Support:

+91 82 82 82 82 82
+91 11 - 4096 4096