MERE UPLOADING OF ORDER ON GST PORTAL IS NOT VALID SERVICE; LIMITATION STARTS FROM DATE OF ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE (RTI)

ISSUE

Whether the mere uploading of an adjudication order on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid “service of order” under Section 169 of the GST Act, sufficient to trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal, or if the Department is obliged to use other modes of service (like email or post) to ensure the taxpayer is actually informed.

FACTS

The Order: The Respondent authority passed an adjudication order against the petitioner on 31-05-2023.
Lack of Knowledge: The petitioner contended that they were unaware of this order as it was merely uploaded to the portal without any alert.
The Discovery: The petitioner became aware of the order only after applying under the RTI Act, 2005 and securing a copy on 22-07-2025.
The Dispute: The Department likely treated the appeal/challenge as time-barred (calculating from May 2023), while the petitioner argued that the “date of communication” should be the date of actual receipt (July 2025).

DECISION

Precedent Applied: The Court relied on the recent judgment in Sharp Tanks and Structurals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) [2025] (Madras High Court).
Portal Upload Insufficient: The Court reiterated that “mere uploading of an order in the GST Portal would not suffice” as valid service/communication under Section 169.
Duty to Serve: The Proper Officer ought to choose other modes of service available under Section 169 (such as registered post or email) to ensure the order is actually communicated. Relying solely on the portal when the taxpayer has not acknowledged receipt is not a proper exercise of power.
Relief: The Court directed that no coercive action (recovery) should be taken against the petitioner, effectively accepting the later date (RTI receipt) as the date of knowledge for legal recourse.
Verdict: [In Favour of Assessee]

KEY TAKEAWAYS

The “Sharp Tanks” Defense: This 2025 judgment is a landmark precedent for anyone who missed an appeal deadline because they didn’t check the portal. It establishes that “Communication” requires the recipient to actually receive the information, distinguishing it from technical “uploading.”
RTI Strategy: If you suspect an adverse order exists but cannot find it (or your portal access is blocked), filing an RTI application is a strategic move. It creates an official “Date of Receipt” from which your limitation period for appeal can freshly begin.
Section 169 Hierarchy: While the Department prefers the portal (Clause d), Courts are increasingly holding that if that fails, they must attempt Clause (b) (Registered Post) or Clause (c) (Email) before claiming valid service.

HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

Nikhil Debnath

Union of India^*

M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ.
and BISWAJIT PALIT, J.

WP (C) No. 708 of 2025

DECEMBER 17, 2025

Bharat Raj Chandani, Sr. Adv. and Kausik Paul, Adv. for the Petitioner. Bidyut Majumder, Dy. S.G.I., B. Roy, Adv. and P. Gautam, Sr. Gov. Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Issue notice to the respondents.

2. Mr. Bidyut Majumder, Dy. S.G.I, accepts notice for the respondent No.1, Mr. P. Gautam, Sr. Government Advocate, accepts notice for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. Biplabendu Roy, accepts notice for the respondents No. 3 & 4.

3. Having regard to the judgment of the Madras High Court in Sharp Tanks and Structurals (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) GSTL 199/34 Centax 426 (Mad), which lays down that mere uploading of an order in the GST Portal would not suffice and that the respondent ought to choose other modes of service also, which would be a proper exercise of the power of the respondents when there are other choices also made available under Section 169 of the Act), no further coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.4, which according to the petitioners has become available to them only after they applied under the RTI Act, 2005 and secured it on 22.07.2025.

4. List on 16.03.2026.