Telangana High Court
M/S. Computer Task Information ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Customs ... on 18 February, 2025
*THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
*THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
+WRIT PETITION Nos.36631 and 36644 of 2024
% 18-02-2025
#M/s. Computer Task Information Technology Services Private Limited.
...Petitioners
vs.
$ The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax,
Malkajgiri GST Division, Medchal GST Commissionerate,
Secunderabad and others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri G. Narendra Chetty.
^Counsel for Respondents: Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior
Standing Counsel for CBIC, for
respondent No.1.
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred
1. 2019 (11) TMI 1204
2. 2015 (325) ELT 486 (Mad.)
2
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
WRIT PETITION Nos.36631 and 36644 of 2024
(Per Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Between:
M/s. Computer Task Information Technology Services Private Limited.
...Petitioners
vs.
The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Central Tax,
Malkajgiri GST Division, Medchal GST Commissionerate,
Secunderabad and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.02.2025
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : -
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : -
___________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
3
THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
WRIT PETITION Nos.36631 and 36644 of 2024
COMMON ORDER(Oral):(Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul)
Sri G.Narendra Chetty, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Dominic Fernandes, learned Senior Standing Counsel for
CBIC for respondent No.1.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the orders impugned
herein, these writ petitions were analogously heard on admission.
3. The facts are taken from W.P.No.36631 of 2024. This writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes
exception to the Order-in-Original No.146/2023-ST, dated
29.09.2023 (wrongly typed as 29.09.2022 in the impugned order).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
impugned order is appealable, since the petitioner came to know
about the impugned Order-in-Original only through bank and
notices at no point of time were served on the petitioner, the writ
petition can be directly entertained.
5. By taking this Court to Section 37C of the Central Excise
Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1944 Act"), learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescribed methods of
service of decisions, orders and summons are mentioned in this
provision. This provision does not provide any method of service
of notices through e-mail.
6. Criticizing the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the memo
dated 29.01.2025, it is submitted that the communication
dated 05.10.2023 from "[email protected]" was addressed to
"[email protected]", which may be the e-mail ID of an
employee of the company, but it is not the e-mail ID of the
company and consequently, the communication through e-mail is
totally unknown in the teeth of Section 37C of the 1944 Act.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on an
order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
(CESTAT), Allahabad, in M/s. Samsung India Electronics
Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida 1
(Service Tax Appeal No.50566 of 2014 (DB), Final Order
No.71611/2019, dated 18.07.2019), and urged that the order of
2019 (11) TMI 1204
the High Court of Madras in OSA Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai 2, was considered in
paragraph 3 of the said order.
8. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC, on the other
hand, submits that the communication dated 05.10.2023
regarding the Order-in-Original was sent to
"[email protected]". From the said e-mail ID, on behalf
of the company, a mail was sent on 06.10.2021. No additional
affidavit has been filed stating that "[email protected]"
is not an ID of an employee of the company and therefore, it
cannot be said that the company was not aware of the Order-in-
Original till it was communicated through the bank.
9. By placing reliance on Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of the
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to
as, "the CGST Act"), learned Senior Standing Counsel for CBIC
submits that a combined reading of both the provisions makes it
clear that the mode of service prescribed in the CGST Act can be
made applicable for recovery of arrears of tax under any previous
law.
2015 (325) ELT 486 (Mad.)
10. The parties have confined their arguments to the extent
indicated above and no other point is pressed.
11. We have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
12. Section 37C of the 1944 Act reads thus:-
"37C. Service of decisions, orders, summons, etc.--
(1) Any decision or order passed or any summons or
notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder,
shall be served,--
(a) by tendering the decision, order, summons or
notice, or sending it by registered post with
acknowledgment due or by speed post with proof
of delivery or by courier approved by the Central
Board of Excise and Customs constituted under
the Central Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of
1963)], to the person for whom it is intended or
his authorised agent, if any;
(b) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot
be served in the manner provided in clause (a),
by affixing a copy thereof to some conspicuous
part of the factory or warehouse or other place of
business or usual place of residence of the
person for whom such decision, order, summons
or notice, as the case may be, is intended;
(c) if the decision, order, summons or notice cannot
be served in the manner provided in clauses (a)
and (b), by affixing a copy thereof on the notice-
board of the officer or authority who or which
passed such decision or order or issued such
summons or notice.
(2) Every decision or order passed or any summons or
notice issued under this Act or the rules made thereunder,
shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which
the decision, order, summons or notice is tendered or
delivered by post or courier referred to in sub-section (1) or a
copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section
(1)."
13. The CGST Act came into being in the year 2017 and Section
142 thereof deals with "miscellaneous transitional provisions". It
is apposite to consider sub-section (8)(a) of Section 142 of the
CGST Act, which reads thus:
"142(8)(a). where in pursuance of an assessment or
adjudication proceedings instituted, whether before, on or
after the appointed day, under the existing law, any
amount of tax, interest, fine or penalty becomes recoverable
from the person, the same shall, unless recovered under
the existing law, be recovered as an arrear of tax under
this Act and the amount so recovered shall not be
admissible as input tax credit under this Act."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. A minute reading of the aforesaid provision makes it clear
that any assessment or adjudication proceedings instituted before,
or after the appointed day can continue and the amount will be
recoverable as an arrear of tax under the CGST Act.
15. Section 169(1)(c) of the CGST Act reads thus:-
"169(1)(c). by sending a communication to his e-mail
address provided at the time of registration or as amended
from time to time; or"
16. A conjoint reading of Sections 142(8)(a) and 169(1)(c) of the
CGST Act shows that the argument of the learned Senior Standing
Counsel for CBIC has substantial force. The provision relating to
service of notice provided under the CGST Act can be applied in
view of Section 142(8)(a) of the CGST Act in relation to any other
existing law, which includes the 1944 Act. Thus, we are unable to
persuade ourselves with the line of argument of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that since Section 37C of the 1944 Act is
silent about the electronic mode of service through e-mail etc., the
said mode is impermissible or not acceptable.
17. So far the order of the CESTAT, Allahabad, in
M/s. Samsung India Electronics Private Limited (supra) is
concerned, paragraph 3 of the said order only gives a reference to
the order of the High Court of Madras in OSA Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
(supra). But, the said paragraph does not deal with the aspect of
the validity of service of notice through e-mail mode. Apart from
that, in the said case, the notices etc., were issued before the
CGST Act came into being. Thus, that order is, even otherwise, of
no assistance.
18. Apart from the above, the petitioner was served with a notice
in Form GSTDRC 13 on 08.11.2024 issued under the CGST Act.
This action also supports the contention that in view of Section
142(8)(a) of the CGST Act, adjudication proceedings instituted
under the existing law shall continue under the CGST Act.
19. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of preferring an
appeal. The petitioner can avail the said remedy. We find no
reason to short circuit the appellate remedy and entertain the
petition directly.
20. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of by reserving
the liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal. The petitioner
may prefer the appeal with an application for condonation of delay
by showing the date of knowledge. The appellate authority shall
consider it in accordance with law. The time consumed before
this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of counting the
limitation. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________
SUJOY PAUL, ACJ
__________________________
RENUKA YARA, J
18.02.2025
Note:
LR copy be marked.
B/o.vs/sa
