Vigilance Over the GST Portal: Three-Year Delay in Filing Appeal Not Condonable Despite Claim of No Email/SMS Alerts

1. The Core Dispute: Portal Awareness vs. Statutory Communication

The assessee filed an appeal nearly three years after the assessment order was issued. The primary defense was a lack of awareness: the assessee claimed they did not receive any Email or SMS alerts indicating that the order had been uploaded to the GST common portal.

Assessee’s Stand: In the absence of proactive alerts, the mere uploading of an order on the portal does not constitute effective “communication” or “service” of the order.
Revenue’s Stand: The department followed due process by issuing notices in Form ASMT-10 (scrutiny notice) and Form DRC-01A (intimation of tax). The assessee failed to respond to these preliminary notices, showing a consistent lack of vigilance.

2. Legal Analysis: The Burden of Vigilance

The Court examined the interplay between Section 107 (Limitation for Appeal) and Section 169 (Methods of Service).

I. Limitation Period under Section 107

The statutory timeline for filing a GST appeal is 3 months, with a maximum condonable delay of 1 month (Total: 4 months).

The Ruling: A delay of three years is far beyond the statutory powers of the Appellate Authority to condone. While High Courts can exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226, they do so only when the petitioner demonstrates “sufficient cause” and bona fide conduct.

II. Valid Modes of Service (Section 169)

Section 169(1)(d) explicitly lists “making it available on the common portal” as a valid method of service.

The Finding: The Court noted that the assessee was already put on notice via ASMT-10 and DRC-01A. By ignoring these earlier stages of the proceedings, the assessee lost the right to claim “surprise” at the final order.
Vigilance: Taxpayers are expected to periodically check their GST dashboard. The failure of the system to trigger a specific SMS or Email alert does not invalidate the legal service of an order if it is available on the portal.

3. Final Verdict: Writ Petition Dismissed

The High Court refused to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the law does not help those who sleep over their rights.

Verdict: The writ petition was dismissed.
Key Reason: The assessee was not “vigilant to prosecute the matter” and failed to respond to multiple statutory notices (ASMT-10 and DRC-01A) that preceded the final order.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Dashboard is the Source of Truth: Do not rely solely on Email or SMS alerts. Set a recurring schedule (e.g., weekly or fortnightly) to log in and check the “View Additional Notices/Orders” tab on the GST portal.
Respond to Early Notices: Ignoring an ASMT-10 or DRC-01A is fatal. These notices are the first indicators of a pending demand; responding at this stage can prevent an ex-parte order.
Limitation is Strict: GST is a self-contained code. Once the 4-month window for appeal passes, getting a condonation from the Court becomes exceptionally difficult unless there is a severe violation of natural justice (e.g., no notice issued at all).

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Medha Servo Drives (P.) Ltd.

Union of India^*

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J.

WP(C) NO. 41395 OF 2025

NOVEMBER 6, 2025

C.K.Sreejith, Smt.Namitha Jyothish and Smt.Kozhipurath Praseetha Gopalakrishnan, Advs. for the Petitioner. Reshmitha R Chandran, SR GP, V Girishkumar, SC and Sudhin, Adv. for the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition is submitted by the petitioner, a registered tax payer. The petitioner is an assessee under the CGST and SGST Act, 2017. This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

(i)

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 3rd respondent to accept the appeal Exhibit P7 and dispose of the same on merit.

(ii)

Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to dispense the delay in filing the appeal considering the fact that, the order was not properly communicated to the petitioner

(iii)

to dispense with filing of the translation of vernacular documents

(iv)

Grant such other order as this Hon’ble court deems fit and necessary in the facts and circumstance of the case.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is mainly based on Ext.P1 order, passed on 23.09.2022, and challenging the same, the petitioner had submitted Ext.P7 appeal beyond the time limit contemplated under Section 107 of the Act. The case of the petitioner is that they were not aware of the issuance of Ext.P1, as they did not receive any alert, even though the same was uploaded in the web portal. It was in these circumstances the above reliefs are referred to.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Central Government Counsel for the 1^st respondent, and the learned Government Pleader for the remaining respondents.

4. As far as the relief sought by the petitioner is concerned, it is to seek enlargement of time for filing the appeal before the 1^st appellate authority. However, as per Section 107 of the Act, there is a specific time limit of three months contemplated for filing the appeal, and the appellate authority can condone the delay upon the appellant furnishing the reasons for the same, only up to a period of one month thereafter. Here in this case, despite the fact that the Ext.P1 was issued on 23.09.2022, the appeal was filed only on 08.09.2025, which is after three years. Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner did not receive any alert by E-mail or SMS regarding the uploading of Ext.P1 order. I am of the view that going by the scheme of the Act and the manner in which the service of notice is contemplated under Section 169, the same is not envisaged. In this case there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the order was uploaded in the web portal.

5. Apart from the above, on going through the Ext.P1 order, it can be seen that before issuing the said order, the petitioner was issued with a notice in form ASMT-10 and thereafter yet another notice in form DRC-01 A, and both the notices were not responded to by the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable reasons to entertain this writ petition, as the petitioner was not vigilant to prosecute the matter.

In such circumstances this writ petition is dismissed.