2025 (6) TMI 1775 - HC - Income Tax

Delay as beyond the condonnable period - ex parte order - delay of 6 months in filing the appeal against the assessment order - as submitted assessment order was issued to an outdated e-mail ID of his former auditor - HELD THAT - No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service but the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc. the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act which are also the valid mode of service under the Act otherwise it will not be an effective service rather it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc. effectively to the petitioner. This Court is inclined to set aside the rejection order by condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order since the reason assigned by the petitioner appears to be genuine.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

• Whether the delay of six months in filing the appeal against the ex parte order dated 24.01.2024 is condonable under the applicable legal provisions.
• Whether the service of statutory notices and communications to the petitioner was valid and effective, considering the petitioner's claim that notices were sent to an outdated e-mail ID of the former auditor.
• Whether the authorities complied with the requirements of effective service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, including exploring alternative modes of service when initial modes failed to elicit response.
• The propriety of rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay beyond the condonable period without considering the petitioner's explanation for non-receipt of notices.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The law permits condonation of delay in filing appeals, subject to satisfaction of the appellate authority that the delay was due to sufficient cause. The limitation period for filing appeals in tax proceedings is generally six months from the date of the order, with some discretion for condonation beyond this period.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the appeal was filed on 27.08.2024 against an ex parte order dated 24.01.2024, resulting in a delay of six months beyond the prescribed period. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 19.11.2024 on the ground that the delay exceeded the condonable period.

The petitioner contended that the delay was due to non-receipt of notices, as they were sent to an outdated e-mail ID of the former auditor, who was deceased. The Court found this explanation to be plausible and genuine.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's claim centered on the fact that all notices were sent to an outdated e-mail address, which prevented timely knowledge of the ex parte order and consequent filing of appeal.

Application of law to facts: Given the genuine reason for delay, the Court held that the delay in filing the appeal deserved to be condoned.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner had provided a valid e-mail ID and contact number in the Income Tax Returns (ITR), and all statutory notices were sent to that e-mail ID. They contended that service was valid and the delay was attributable to the petitioner's negligence.

The Court acknowledged the respondents' position but emphasized that mere sending of notices through a single mode, without ensuring effective receipt, does not satisfy the requirement of effective service.

Conclusion: The Court condoned the delay of six months in filing the appeal, subject to payment of costs, recognizing the petitioner's explanation as sufficient cause.

Issue 2: Validity and Effectiveness of Service of Notices

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 169 of the GST Act prescribes the modes of service of notices and orders, including electronic modes and physical delivery such as Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due (RPAD). Effective service is a prerequisite for valid proceedings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that although service by uploading notices on the portal and sending emails is generally sufficient, the authorities failed to explore alternative modes of service when no response was received from the petitioner.

The Court stated, "Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations."

Key evidence and findings: The respondents provided evidence that notices were sent to the e-mail ID [email protected] and contact number 9994432429 as per the ITR filed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner claimed that these communications did not reach him effectively.

Application of law to facts: The Court emphasized that when there is no response to notices sent by one mode, the issuing officer must apply their mind and attempt service through other modes prescribed under the Act, preferably RPAD, to ensure effective communication.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents maintained that all statutory notices were duly served through the registered e-mail and messages to the contact number. The petitioner countered that service to the outdated e-mail ID was ineffective.

The Court sided with the petitioner on the ground that the authorities did not take adequate steps to ensure effective service beyond the initial mode.

Conclusion: The Court found a lack of effective service and held that the authorities failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner by not exploring alternative modes of service.

Issue 3: Propriety of Rejecting Appeal on Delay Grounds Without Considering Petitioner's Explanation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice require that an aggrieved party be given adequate opportunity to be heard and that reasons for delay be considered before rejecting an appeal.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the appellate authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground of delay beyond the condonable period without adequately considering the petitioner's explanation regarding non-receipt of notices.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's explanation was supported by the fact that the ex parte order was received only in August 2024, months after its passing in January 2024.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that rejecting the appeal without considering the genuineness of the petitioner's explanation would be unjust and contrary to the principles of natural justice.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was negligent and that notices were sent properly. The Court found that the petitioner's explanation deserved consideration and that the rejection was premature.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the rejection order and directed the appellate authority to admit the appeal and decide it on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities."

"Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well."

"Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner."

Core principles established include the necessity for authorities to ensure effective service by exploring multiple modes of communication when initial attempts fail, and that delay in filing appeals may be condoned where genuine reasons such as non-receipt of notices exist.

Final determinations:

• The rejection order dated 19.11.2024 was set aside.
• The delay of six months in filing the appeal was condoned, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs.
• The appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on merits after providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner.