Order sent through registered post and Acknowledgement received against such post, it will be considered that order is being properly served.

Case Title: A.S. Jewellers v. State Tax Officer

Court: High Court of Kerala

Petition No.: WP(C) No. 21208 of 2021

Date of Judgment: 3 November 2021

Category of Dispute: Detention of Goods / Service of Order / Bank Guarantee / Appeal Rights

Relevant Section(s): Section 129(3), Section 107, Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017

Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

Facts of the Case

1. The petitioner, A.S. Jewellers, was engaged in gold ornament job work. On 29.08.2019, while transporting finished ornaments, their staff was intercepted by Railway Police, suspecting smuggling. An FIR was lodged, and 2767 grams of gold were seized (Para 2).
2. Petitioner claimed ownership and sought interim custody from the Judicial Magistrate, who allowed return of gold on furnishing bank guarantee under Section 129 of CGST Act. A bank guarantee was submitted on 14.11.2019 and corrected on 06.02.2020 (Para 2).
3. Adjudication allegedly happened on 24.01.2020, but petitioner claimed non-receipt of the final order. Later, a notice dated 22.09.2021 was received invoking the bank guarantee, referring to an order dated 25.01.2020 which the petitioner denied receiving (Para 3).
4. Respondents produced dispatch proof, including registered post acknowledgment dated 03.02.2020 and denied irregularities, asserting valid service under Section 169 (Para 4).

Question(s) in Consideration

1. Whether the final order under Section 129(3) of the CGST Act was properly served upon the petitioner?
2. Whether invocation of the bank guarantee before actual service of the order was valid?
3. Whether the petitioner should be granted a certified copy to enable appeal under Section 107?

(Relevant Paragraphs: 1, 3, 6)

Observation of the Court

1. The Court examined Section 169 of the CGST Act and affirmed that service by registered post with acknowledgment due creates a legal presumption of receipt (Para 6–7).
2. Based on dispatch records and acknowledgment card, the Court held the order under Section 129(3) was deemed served on 03.02.2020 (Para 8).
3. Despite this, the Court acknowledged the petitioner’s plea for a certified copy due to alleged misplacement and held that right to appeal must not be curtailed on technical grounds. Reference was made to the Supreme Court’s order on condonation of limitation in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (Para 9).

Judgment of the Court

1. The Court directed the State Tax Officer to issue a certified copy of the order dated 25.01.2020 forthwith to the petitioner.
2. It further ordered that invocation of the bank guarantee through the impugned letter be kept in abeyance for 60 days to allow the petitioner to file an appeal (Para 9).
3. Writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

Between Fine Lines

• Even if a statutory order is deemed served under law, if there’s any genuine claim of non-receipt or misplacement, the authority should issue a certified copy.
• Service under Section 169 by registered post is valid unless convincingly disproved.
• Invocation of bank guarantee is to be restrained till appeal remedy is effectively provided.
• Procedural fairness must coexist with statutory presumptions of service.
• Relief under Supreme Court’s extension of limitation orders applies to GST adjudications too.

Summary of Referred Cases