Delay condoned as Order uploaded in 'Additional Notices' tab; Taxpayers not expected to check wrong tab

Delay condoned as Order uploaded in ‘Additional Notices’ tab; Taxpayers not expected to check wrong tab

Issue

Whether the delay in filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 should be condoned when the delay occurred because the Adjudication Order was uploaded by the Department under the “View Additional Notices And Orders” tab instead of the standard “View Notices And Orders” tab on the GST Portal.

Facts

The Order: The petitioners, registered taxpayers, faced adjudication proceedings which culminated in an order passed against them.
Mode of Service: The Department uploaded this adjudication order on the GST Common Portal. However, instead of placing it under the main “View Notices And Orders” tab, it was uploaded under the “View Additional Notices And Orders” tab.
The Delay: The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the order because they did not check the “Additional Notices” tab, leading to a delay in filing the statutory appeal.
Rejection: The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred and rejected the plea for condonation of delay.
The Challenge: The petitioners filed a writ petition arguing that the service of the order through an obscure tab caused the delay and was a valid ground for condonation.

Decision

Portal Confusion: The High Court acknowledged the practical difficulty caused by the design of the GST portal, which has separate tabs for “View Notices And Orders” and “View Additional Notices And Orders.”
Reasonable Expectation: The Court held that it is not expected for a taxpayer to routinely check the “View Additional Notices And Orders” tab for main adjudication orders, which should logically appear under the main tab.
Precedent applied: Noting that coordinate benches had already recognized this technical difficulty and condoned delays in similar facts, the Court held that the petitioners merited similar relief.
Ruling: The order dismissing the appeal was set aside. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned (subject to payment of cost), and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits.

Key Takeaways

“Additional Notices” Trap: A significant number of GST orders are missed because they are uploaded to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab (found under User Services > View Additional Notices). Courts consistently view this as a valid “sufficient cause” for condoning appeal delays.

Service Validity: While uploading to the portal constitutes valid service under Section 169, uploading it to a misleading or secondary tab mitigates the strict application of limitation periods.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Multireach Media (P.) Ltd.

State of West Bengal

Om Narayan Rai, J.

WPA No. 20933 of 2025

NOVEMBER 19, 2025

Rishi Raju and Ms. Shreya Mundhra for the Petitioner. Tanoy Chakraborty, Ms. Sumita Shaw, Saptak Sanyal and Soumen Chatterjee for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioners assail an order dated July 24, 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 whereby the petitioners’ appeal against an order dated September 26, 2023 passed by the Adjudicating Authority was dismissed. The Appellate Authority has rejected the petitioners appeal on the ground that the same was filed belatedly.

2. Mr. Raju, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners invites the attention of this Court to the petitioners’ application for condonation of delay filed before the Appellate Authority (at pages 73 to 75 of the writ petition) and submits that the petitioners did not have knowledge of the order dated September 26, 2023 since the said order was uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab.

3. It is submitted that several registered tax-payers have faced similar problems and belated appeals filed by such tax-payers have been allowed to be considered and decided on merits by this Court under similar circumstances. In order to buttress his contention he relies on the following judgments rendered by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court.

Mohammad Hasim Khan v. State of West Bengal (7) TMI 1863 – Calcutta High Court

Sukumar Kundu v. UOI (Calcutta)/2024 (7) TMI 533

4. It is further submitted that the petitioners have no other avenue to mount a challenge to the order impugned inasmuch as the Tribunal before which an appeal against an order passed under Section 107 would lie has not yet become functional.

5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appearing for the respondents supports the order impugned and submits that the petitioners had responded to the show-cause and that being so, the petitioners contention that it had no knowledge of the adjudication order being passed, should not be countenanced.

6. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record. This Court has been informed that the GST portal at the relevant point of time contained several tabs, two of which were “View Notices and Orders” tab and “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab. In such a situation it would not be expected of a registered tax (person) payer to open and look into “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab for the purpose of checking main orders or orders passed disposing of main proceedings.

7. Such difficulty has been noticed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in the case of Sukumar Kundu (supra) and Mohammad Hasim Khan (supra). In fact in Mohammad Hasim Khan (supra) the petitioner before the Court had responded to the show-cause notice and had failed the timeline prescribed by the statute for carrying a matter in appeal before the Appellate Authority as it had not noticed the adjudication order uploaded on the GST portal under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab. In such fact, this Court had condoned the delay occasioned by the petitioner in preferring the appeal before the Appellate Authority by observing as follows:

“4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. According to him, the petitioner was well-aware of the proceedings. The petitioner had also responded to the pre-show cause notice. If the petitioner has chosen to stay away, the respondents cannot be held responsible therefor. The appellate authority had rightly rejected the appeal in absence of any cogent explanation.

5. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, I find that in the instant case, an adjudication order has been passed upon the petitioner being served with the requisite notices, though the petitioner claims to have overlooked the notices by reasons of such notices being uploaded on the common portal under the heading “Additional Notices and Orders”. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had responded to the pre-show cause notice, I am not inclined to accept such explanation provided by the petitioner.

6. Be that as it may, taking into consideration the fact that the provisions of the said Act provides for multi-tire adjudicating process and the petitioner by reasons of the Appellate Tribunal not being constituted is unable to maintain its challenge before the statutory authority, ordinarily, this Court would be required to hear out the matter on merits. In this context, I may note that all records of the proceedings are available on common portal. On the contrary, for this Court to determine the cause the entire records would be required to be downloaded and placed before this Court.

7. Having regard thereto, though the explanation provided for by the petitioner is not entirely sufficient, however, for the ends of justice, I remand the matter back to the appellate authority for a decision on merits, by condoning the delay, subject to the petitioner making payment of a sum of Rs. 5000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee. The consequential demand, if any, in form A:P-04 shall stand quash. “

8. Taking cue from the aforesaid observations made by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a fact situation similar to that in the case at hand, this Court is of the view, that the petitioners before this Court should also be similarly treated.

9. The matter is therefore remanded to the Appellate Authority for taking a fresh decision on merits by condoning the delay subject to the petitioners making payment of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- with the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks from date. If the petitioners make such payment of the said sum within two weeks as aforesaid and produce receipt thereof before the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits and the order dated July 24, 2025 impugned herein shall have no effect.

10. The writ petition being WPA 20933 of 2025 is disposed of.

11. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on urgent basis after completion of necessary formalities.