Non-Intimation Of Address Change: CESTAT Upholds Presumptive Service of Adjudication Order Despite Claim of Non-Receipt

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Allahabad Bench, has held that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the adjudication order was validly served at the assessee’s registered business address. The bench of Sanjiv Srivastava (Technical Member) ruled that the assessee could not take advantage of its own failure to intimate the department about any alleged change in address and reaffirmed the legal presumption of service under Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The case arose from a service tax demand confirmed against the appellant, pursuant to an Order-in-Original dated September 28, 2021. The assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was dismissed as time-barred on the ground that it was filed well beyond the statutory period and even beyond the condonable limit prescribed under Section 35 of the Central Excise Act, as made applicable to service tax matters. Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Tribunal, which initially upheld the dismissal by invoking the doctrine of presumptive service. This order was subsequently challenged before the jurisdictional High Court. The High Court, while admitting the appeal, framed a substantial question of law on whether the Tribunal had erred in presuming service of the adjudication order without any acknowledgement due or proof of actual delivery. Observing that the Tribunal, being the last fact-finding authority, had not examined the factual matrix in sufficient detail, the High Court remanded the matter to CESTAT to determine whether proper service had indeed been effected. On remand, the Tribunal undertook an exhaustive examination of records, affidavits, registration details, challans, appeal memoranda, and GST data. It found that the adjudication order had been dispatched by speed post to the address declared by the assessee as its principal place of business in its Service Tax and GST registrations. The same address consistently appeared in GST returns, pre-deposit challans, appeal documents, and departmental correspondence. The assessee had not intimated the department about any change in its business address until August 2022, long after the order had been dispatched. The plea that the company’s registered office under MCA records was different was held to be irrelevant for service tax proceedings, where communications are to be sent to the registered business premises declared with the tax authorities. The Tribunal observed that a company may have multiple addresses, but for indirect tax proceedings, the address declared in statutory registrations is decisive. Failure to update such records cannot invalidate service effected at the recorded address. Relying on a long line of judicial precedents, including decisions of the Supreme Court and various High Courts, the Tribunal held that once an order is properly addressed, prepaid, and dispatched by post, a statutory presumption of service arises. The burden to rebut this presumption lies on the assessee, which had failed to produce any cogent evidence to show non-service The Tribunal further noted that even assuming the assessee acquired actual knowledge of the order in August 2022, the appeal was still filed beyond the maximum period that could be condoned by the Commissioner (Appeals). In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Singh Enterprises, the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed limit. In strong observations, the Tribunal remarked that no party can take advantage of its own wrong, particularly where the assessee failed to update its address with the department while continuing to file returns and make payments reflecting the same address. The Tribunal also noted inconsistencies between affidavits filed by the assessee and publicly available GST records, leaving open the possibility of further investigation by the department. Case Details Case Title: M/s Rebecca Forex Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner, CGST, Lucknow Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No.70384 of 2023 Date: 19.01.2026 Counsel For Appellant: S.P. Ojha, Consultant Counsel For Respondent: Chitra Srivastava, Authorized Representative Click Here To Read Order Read More: Statements, Email Printouts Inadmissible For Non-Compliance Of S. 138B, 138C Of Customs Act: CESTAT

Non-Intimation Of Address Change: CESTAT Upholds Presumptive Service of Adjudication Order Despite Claim of Non-Receipt

Membership Required

Latest articles

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

Even “Loans” Can Be Treated as Deposits Under MPID Act; Failure of IPC Charges Doesn’t Bar Action Under Depositor Protection Law: Supreme court

More like this

Woman’s Family Alleges Murder, Questions Fall Theory After Suspicious Injuries Found on Body

Twisha Sharma’s Death: BCI Suspends Licence of Adv Samarth Singh Amid Probe & Sent To 7 Days Police Custody

Petition in Supreme Court Seeks CBI Probe Against “Cockroach Janta Party” Over Alleged Fake Law Degrees and Misuse of Court Identity

About us

Company

Categories