Accountant of Firm cannot be Considered as Representative of Taxable Person u/s 169(1)(a) GST Act: Allahabad HC quashes Notice Served

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/accountant-of-firm-cannot-be-considered-as-representative-of-taxable-person-u-s-1691a-gst-act-allahabad-hc-quashes-notice-served-read-order/266842/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=Accountant%20of%20Firm%20cannot%20be%20Considered%20as%20Representative%20of%20Taxable%20Person%20u/s%20169(1)(a)%20GST%20Act:%20Allahabad%20HC%20quashes%20Notice%20Served

• Top Stories

The notice served was invalidated by a panel of the Allahabad High Court presided over by Justice Pankaj Bhatia because it was not served in accordance with law. It was determined that the notice was invalid and that the entire proceeding should be quashed.

The petitioner, M/s Maa Mahamaaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd., is a Goods and Services Tax (GST) registered tax payer. It was claimed that the GSTR-3B and other purchases made by the petitioner were appropriately represented on the department’s portal.

The present petition has been filed to find whether the service of notice as claimed by the respondent satisfies the requirement contemplated under Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act), 2017. The section 169 provides the manner of service of notice.

The bench observed that in terms of Section 169(1)(a) of CGST Act, a service would be completed only when it is tendered to the taxable person or on his Manager or authorized representative, advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person.

In the present instance, despite not being mentioned in the above provision, the firm’s accountant received the notice.

The court stated that serving the accountant of the firm is neither contemplated nor provided for under Section 169(1)(a), and as such, the service as claimed by the respondent’s counsel on the accountant cannot be held to be a valid service; consequently, on that count as well, the entire proceeding is subject to being quashed.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Maa Mahamaya Alloys Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of U.P.

Counsel for Appellant:   Aloke Kumar

Counsel for Respondent:   C.S.C.

CITATION:   2023 TAXSCAN (HC) 622

Be the First to get the Best

Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox

Email Address *