Wednesday, 06, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Koduvayur Constructions vs The Assistant ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8407 Ker

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 8407 Ker
Judgement Date : 7 August, 2023

Kerala High Court
Koduvayur Constructions vs The Assistant ... on 7 August, 2023
                                             1
WP(C) No.21212 of 2023


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                        PRESENT
                    THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
     MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 16TH SRAVANA, 1945
                               WP(C) NO. 21212 OF 2023
PETITIONER/S:

              KODUVAYUR CONSTRUCTIONS,
              XI/382, OPPOSITE KODUVAYUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE,
              KODUVAYUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
              R.RAMESH, MANAGING PARTNER, PIN - 678501

              BY ADV ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEV


RESPONDENT/S:

      1       THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER-WORKS CONTRACT,
              STATE GST DEPARTMENT KERALA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

      2       THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF STATE (ARREAR RECOVERY)
              STATE GST DEPARTMENT, SECOND FLOOR, SGST COMPLEX,
              PALAKKAD, PIN - 678001

OTHER PRESENT:

              SMT.THUSHARA JAMES, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER



       THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   07.08.2023,         THE    COURT   ON       THE   SAME   DAY   DELIVERED   THE
FOLLOWING:
                                 2
WP(C) No.21212 of 2023


                          C.S DIAS,J.
                       ---------------------------
                  WP(C) No.21212 of 2023
                      -----------------------------
             Dated this the 7th day of August, 2023 .

                         JUDGMENT

The writ petition is filed, inter alia, to direct the first

respondent from initiating any proceedings against the

petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act.

2. The petitioner's case is that it was a registered

dealer under the CGST/SGST Acts, 2017. The

petitioner's GST registration was cancelled as per Ext

P2 order with effect from 30.9.2021. The petitioner was

under the impression that it had no liability to pay the

respondents under the above Acts. However, the

petitioner has been served with Ext P1 order dated

14.10.2022 on the GST portal, calling upon the

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023

petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.19,22,566/-. There

has been no effective service of notice on the petitioner

by the respondents. The unreasonable demand raised by

the respondents through Ext P1 is unjustifiable. Hence,

the writ petition.

3. Heard; Sri.Alan Priyadarshi Dev, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Thushara

James, the learned Senior Government Pleader

appearing for the respondents.

4. The principal grievance of the petitioner in the

writ petition is that its GST registration was cancelled

by Ext P2 order dated 21.10.2021. The petitioner was

under the bona fide belief that it has no further liability

under the CGST/SGST Acts. But, the first respondent

has issued the petitioner with Ext P1 assessment order

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023

dated 14.10.2022 demanding the petitioner to pay an

amount of Rs.19,22,566/-. The petitioner alleges that it

was not served with proper notice as provided under the

Act. Hence, the entire proceedings leading to Ext P1 is

vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

5. Sec.169 of the CGST Act, 2017 deals with the

manner in which service of notice to be carried out in

certain circumstances. It is apposite to extract Sec.169

of the CGST Act, which reads as follows:

         169. Service          of    notice     in    certain
     circumstances

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods,namely:-

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023

person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or

(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or

(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or

(d) by making it available on the common portal; or

(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or

(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section(1).

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023

(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

6. A reading of Clauses (a) to (f) of sub-sec(1) of

Sec.169 clearly shows that any decision, order,

summons, notice or communication under the Act and

Rules can be served on the assessee through any one of

the methods mentioned above.

7. The petitioner does not dispute the fact that Ext

P1 assessment order was made available on the common

portal. The petitioner's only case is that as its GST

registration was cancelled by Ext P2 order, the

petitioner was under the impression that it has no

liability to the respondents. This contention is untenable

in view of the alternative modes of service provided

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023

under Sec.169 (1) of the CGST Act. It was the bounden

duty of the petitioner to have verified its common portal

that is made available as per the provision. Thus, I am

of the definite view that the contentions raised in the

writ petition that Ext P1 assessment order was not

served as per the provisions of the Act is untenable. The

writ petition is meritless and is consequentially

dismissed.

sd/-

sks/7.8.2023                        C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

WP(C) No.21212 of 2023


                         APPENDIX OF WP(C) 21212/2023

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1                 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 14.10.2022 ISSUED
                           BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT

EXHIBIT P2                 TRUE COPY OF THE CANCELLATION OF GST
                           REGISTRATION DATED 21.10.2021

Exhibit-P3                 TRUE COPY OF REVENUE RECOVERY NOTICE DATED

24.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter