GST UPDATE

Question before Hon’ble Court:

Whether mere uploading of an assessment order on the GST common portal amounts to valid communication of the order for the purposes of Section 107(1) of the CGST Act?

Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) commences from the date of passing or uploading of the order, or from the date on which the order is duly communicated to the person aggrieved?

Hon’ble Court:	Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Case Title	M/s Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company VS State Of Rajasthan
Appeal No. & Citation	D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18582/2026
Date of Order	05.10.2026
Outcome	Delay condoned and matter remanded to be heard on merits

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company was issued a show cause notice by the department on account of non-filing of GSTR-3B returns and the consequent tax liability. The notice was merely uploaded on the GST portal followed by the adjudication order. Both the notice and the order were uploaded on the GST portal, without being separately communicated to the petitioner through any of the prescribed modes of service therefore the same went unnoticed. Upon becoming aware of the assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act before the Appellate Authority in Form GST APL-01. Along with the appeal, the petitioner also explained the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal and brought on record that the returns have been subsequently filed along with the late fees and interest. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition.

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

Limitation to commence only from the date of communication of the order

The petitioner submitted that Section 107(1) of the CGST Act specifically provides that an appeal is required to be filed within the prescribed period from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to the person aggrieved. It was contended that the period of limitation cannot commence merely from the date of passing of the order. The statutory requirement of communication is an essential condition for commencement of limitation.

Mere uploading of the order does not amount to communication

The petitioner contended that the assessment order was never communicated to it in the manner contemplated under the Act. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal could not be treated as sufficient communication for the purpose of Section 107(1). As soon as the petitioner came to know about the order, immediate steps were taken to file the appeal.

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Uploading of the order on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service

The Revenue submitted that the assessment order had been uploaded on the GST portal and, therefore, the petitioner was deemed to have knowledge of the passing of the order. It was contended that Section 169 specifically recognises making a communication available on the common portal as a permissible mode of service. Accordingly, uploading of the assessment order on the GST portal itself constituted sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement of service, and the petitioner could not contend that the order had not been communicated.

Appeal rightly dismissed as barred by limitation

It was, therefore, submitted that the Appellate Authority had rightly dismissed the appeal holding the same as time barred as the appeal had been filed beyond the prescribed period and even beyond the additional period for which delay could be condoned.

Findings and Judgement

The Rajasthan High Court examined the provisions of Section 107(1) and Section 169 of the CGST Act and considered the principles laid down by the Supreme Court on the interpretation of the expression communication of an order.

Limitation under Section 107(1) commences from the date of communication of the order

The Court observed that Section 107(1) specifically provides that an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is required to be preferred within the prescribed period from the date on which such decision or order is communicated to the person aggrieved. The Adjudicating Authority is, therefore, required to communicate the order to the aggrieved person. The Court held that communication of an order is not a mere procedural formality but a statutory requirement.

Meaning and scope of the expression 'communication'

The Court further observed that the expression communication has not been defined under the CGST Act or the Rules made thereunder. Therefore, the expression deserves to be interpreted by applying the rule of contextual interpretation and keeping in view the language of the relevant provisions. The same has been tabulated as follows:

Judicial Precedent	Meaning of Communication Derived
Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition)	Communication means information given; sharing of knowledge by one with another; conference, consultation or bargaining. It ordinarily involves a deliberate interchange of thoughts or opinions between two or more persons. The ordinary meaning of communicate is to impart, confer or transmit information.
Union of India v. S.P. Singh, (2008) 5 SCC 438	The expression 'communicate' means to impart, confer or transmit information.
Kubic Darusz v. Union of India & Ors., (1990) 1 SCC 568	'Communicate' is a strong word. It requires sufficient knowledge of the basic facts to be imparted effectively and fully to the person concerned, so as to enable him to make a purposeful and effective representation.
Collector of Central Excise, Madras v. M/s M.M. Rubber & Co., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 471	Where a statutory provision provides a remedy to a person adversely affected by an order, the period of limitation for invoking such remedy must be construed as commencing from the date of communication of the order.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 309	Communication of an order is necessary where it is an essential ingredient for bringing an end result to a status or for providing an opportunity to an aggrieved person to take recourse to law.
D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India & Anr., (2003) 6 SCC 186	The expression 'date of that order' must be construed as the date of communication or knowledge, whether actual or constructive, of the order sought to be reviewed.
Saral Wire Craft Private Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax & Ors., (2015) 14 SCC 523	Service must be meaningful and realistic, not merely to ensure knowledge of the order but also to enable the affected party to initiate any permissible action. The prescribed statutory manner of service must be followed.

Various modes of service under Section 169 of the CGST Act

The provision recognises various modes of service, including:

Giving or tendering the communication directly to the addressee or the persons specified therein.
Sending the communication through registered post, speed post or courier with acknowledgement due.
Sending the communication to the e-mail address furnished at the time of registration or subsequently amended.
Making the communication available on the common portal.
Publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality.
Affixing the communication at the last known place of business or residence, or on the notice board of the concerned office, where the other modes are not practicable.

The Court observed that clauses (a) to (c) are alternative modes and, if the same are not applicable, clauses (d) to (f) would be followed.

Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication under Section 107(1)

The Court observed that the purpose of communicating the order to the person aggrieved is to enable him to prefer an appeal within the prescribed period. The Appellate Authority has been empowered to condone delay only for the additional period provided under Section 107(4), and no further jurisdiction is conferred upon it thereafter. The Court also noticed that the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur & Ors. In these circumstances, the Adjudicating Authority was obliged to strictly comply with Section 107(1), read with Section 169(1), of the CGST Act and communicate the order to the person aggrieved. Thus, mere uploading of the assessment order on the GST portal, without compliance with the statutory requirement of communication, would not be sufficient to commence the period of limitation under Section 107(1).

Rules cannot restrict or override the statutory requirement of communication

The High Court further observed that the Rules are creatures of the Statute and cannot circumscribe or restrict the mode of communication provided under the Statute. The statutory requirement under Section 107(1), read with Section 169, is mandatory in nature. The Rules cannot be interpreted to restrict service only through electronic modes when the Statute itself provides for different modes of service. Accordingly, unless the order is communicated to the affected person in accordance with the statutory provisions, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would not commence.

Consequently, the Appellate Authority was unjustified in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation merely on the basis of the date of passing and uploading of the assessment order. The Rajasthan High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for hearing and deciding the appeal on merits.

CA Pradeep Jain_

This is solely for educational purpose

Readers can also access this from our

Linkedin account : www.linkedin.com/in/ca-pradeep-jain-b6a31a16

Comments

GST update /2026-27/0111

GST UPDATE

Question before Hon’ble Court:

Brief Facts of the Case

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Findings and Judgement

Opinion

Author’s Comment

Post a Comment

Query