Page 130 - GSTL_2nd July 2020 _Vol 38_Part 1

48 GST LAW TIMES [ Vol. 38
submitted by assessee to Department regarding change of address - Only the
change in the e-mail address had been intimated to Department and change of
e-mail address not necessarily to lead to conclusion that postal address also
changed - Mere submission of certificate of registration cannot also be made a
ground that Department should have changed assessee’s address - In absence
of any specific communication regarding change of address, Department justi-
fied in sending order at recorded address - Delay not condoned - Section 100 of
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. [paras 6, 7]
Appeal dismissed
REPRESENTED BY : None, for the Appellant.
Shri A. Thaplial, DR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : Justice Dilip Gupta, President]. - The appeal was filed in
the office on 17th July, 2019 to assail the order dated 31st January, 2019 passed by
the Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax, New Delhi. The appeal
was filed with certain defects and so a communication dated 19th July, 2019 was
sent to the appellant to remove the defects including the defect of not filing an
application for condoning the delay. It transpires that subsequently the defects
were removed and delay condonation application was filed.
2. A communication dated 29th July, 2019 was sent to the appellant by
registered post with the acknowledgement due to inform that the delay condona-
tion application would be listed for hearing on 21st August, 2019. The Track
Consignment Report of the Post Office indicates that the envelope was served
upon the appellant on 1st August, 2019 at 3.53 PM. When the matter was taken
up on 21st August, 2019, neither the appellant nor its Counsel appeared. The
matter was, however, in the interest of justice, adjourned to 27th September,
2019.
3. Even today no one has appeared to press the delay condonation ap-
plication.
4. The delay condonation application has been perused. It is stated that
the applicant had informed the Department for a change in the e-mail address
and a certificate of incorporation pursuant to the change of name had also been
filed in December, 2018. The impugned order was, however, sent at the old ad-
dress of the applicant and it is only when the applicant received a copy of the
order from the old address that the appeal was filed.
5. A perusal of the application does not indicate that any letter in writ-
ing was submitted by the appellant to the Department regarding change of ad-
dress. Only the change in the e-mail address had been intimated to the Depart-
ment and this change of e-mail address would not necessarily lead to a conclu-
sion that the postal address had also changed in the meantime.
6. Mere submission of the certificate of registration cannot also be made
a ground that the Department should have changed the address of the appellant.
In the absence of any specific communication from the appellant regarding
change of address, the Department was justified in sending the order at the rec-
orded address. This apart, it is also not the case of the appellant that when the
order was sent to the earlier Vasant Vihar address, it was not received by the ap-
pellant. All that is stated is that the Vasant Vihar office ought to have forwarded
the order to the Appellant immediately but it failed to do so. The appellant has
GST LAW TIMES  2nd July 2020  130