The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has strongly rebuked the Central GST authorities for serving key legal notices to an outdated address, ultimately setting aside the rejection of a service tax appeal on the grounds of limitation.
The bench of Anil G. Shakkarwar (Technical Member) observed that the appeal was wrongly dismissed as time-barred, as the appellant never received the show cause notice or hearing memo due to the authorities’ failure to update her address—despite a formal request made in 2015. The address change was submitted via the prescribed ST-1 form, but no revised registration certificate (ST-2) was ever issued by the department.
The case arose from a service tax dispute involving an adjudication order dated March 7, 2022, passed by the adjudicating authority and dispatched on March 9, 2022. According to GST authorities, the order was properly sent via speed post to the service provider’s registered address.
However, the appellant argued that she never received any communication, including the show cause notice (dated December 30, 2020) or the hearing notice. It was only on December 12, 2023, that she became aware of the order—when she received an email from the GST Range Superintendent regarding recovery proceedings. This led her to promptly file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), which was rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the prescribed time limit.
The appellant contended that the service provider had formally applied to change her registered address in 2015 through the ST-1 form. Despite this, the GST department never updated the address in the ST-2 registration certificate, and continued to use the outdated location in its correspondence. Additionally, although the appellant’s email address was on record since 2005, it was not used for issuing either the show cause notice or the hearing memo—only being used much later during recovery attempts.
The Tribunal observed that although the appellant’s correct email address was on record since 2005, the Revenue only used it for recovery purposes in December 2023—nearly 21 months after the original adjudication order was passed in March 2022.
“The conduct of Revenue appears partisan,” CESTAT said, noting that the show cause notice dated December 30, 2020, was sent to the wrong address and no opportunity for hearing was provided.
The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner (Appeals) for failing to consider these key facts and for not acting fairly, despite being a senior appellate authority. It concluded that the original adjudication order was passed without adhering to the principles of natural justice.
As a result, the appellate body set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal—delivering a stern reminder to tax authorities on the importance of procedural fairness and accurate communication in adjudication processes.
Case Details
Case Title: Harsimran Kaur Versus Commissioner of CGST, Mumbai South
Case No.: Service Tax Appeal No. 85751 of 2024
Date: 25.07.2025
Counsel For Appellant: R.D. Wagley, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: Dhananjay Dahiwale, Deputy Commissioner
Read More: Limitation Period Not Applicable for Refund of Extra Duty Deposit: CESTAT
