Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned as Mere Portal Upload Without Acknowledgment Does Not Trigger Limitation

By | August 28, 2026
0 Comment
Delay in Filing Appeal Condoned as Mere Portal Upload Without Acknowledgment Does Not Trigger Limitation
Issue
Whether an appeal under Section 107 can be entertained on merits by condoning a 450-day delay when the Order-in-Original was served solely via portal upload without manual service, personal hearing, or acknowledgment.
Facts
  • Assessment Period: Financial Year 2018-19.
  • Mode of Service: The Order-in-Original was uploaded exclusively on the GST portal without manual service or providing an opportunity for a personal hearing.
  • Knowledge of Order: The department issued Form DRC-13 for recovery, leading to a bank lien; the assessee only learned of the recovery telephonically and filed an appeal treating that date as the date of communication.
  • Appellate Dismissal: The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that it lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutory extended limit under Section 107.
  • Writ Jurisdiction Invoked: The assessee filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal, seeking a direction to hear the appeal on merits and lift the bank lien.
Decision
  • Portal Upload Insufficient: Mere uploading of an order on the GST portal without proper acknowledgment does not trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 read with Section 169.
  • Condonation Granted: Although the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limits, refusing to hear the appeal on merits caused grave prejudice due to circumstances beyond the assessee’s control; hence, the 450-day delay was condoned.
  • Direction to Adjudicate: The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and decide the matter on its merits within 30 days. Held in favour of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
  • Trigger Date for Limitation: The limitation period for filing an appeal commences only when an order is validly served and acknowledged, not merely upon silent portal upload.
  • Protection of Natural Justice: Procedural upload cannot substitute manual service or personal hearing, especially when coercive recovery actions like bank liens are initiated without prior actual notice.
  • Writ Relief Against Statutory Bar: High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone delays beyond Section 107 limits to prevent grave injustice stemming from improper service.
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
KLM Power and Infrastructure Co.
v.
State of Rajasthan
Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15498 OF 2026
AUGUST  13, 2026
Ravi Gupta, Ms. Preeti Katta and Harsh Ladha for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahi Yadav, AGA, Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG and Shiv Prakash Dhanera for the Respondent.
ORDER
Arun Monga, J. – Petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 19.06.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, State Tax, Alwar, whereby the appeal preferred against the order-in-original dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Alwar, was rejected on the ground of limitation and further seeks a direction to Respondent No. 4 to remove the hold/lien marked on the petitioner’s bank accounts.
1.1 In the present case, there is delay of 450 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original, whereby GST demand of Rs.16,11,302/-for Financial Year 2018-19 was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit and excess outward tax in Form- GSTR-1 as compared to Form-GSTR-3B. The appeal against the said order was filed on 09.10.2025. However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 19.06.2026 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 04.08.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide circumstances. The delay is thus occasioned by genuine and sufficient cause, and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.
2.1 It was further submitted that the petitioner remained unaware of the passing of the Order-in-Original dated 18.03.2024 as the same was uploaded on the GST portal under the head “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Notices and Orders”. The order was never served upon the petitioner manually or in hard copy. Thereafter, the respondent department initiated recovery proceedings on 19.04.2024 by issuing Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 to the petitioner’s banker, directing the Bank to remit alleged outstanding amount of Rs.16,09,249/- to the government. Consequently, the Bank marked a hold/lien on the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner came to know about the recovery proceedings only on 07.10.2025, when he received a telephone call from an officer of the respondent department informing him that recovery proceedings had been initiated. Upon acquiring knowledge of the impugned order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal on 09.10.2025 wherein specifically mentioned 07.10.2025 being the date of communication on which the impugned order first came to his knowledge. Thereafter, post filing the appeal, the petitioner received an email dated 17.10.2025 from Indian Overseas Bank and a further email dated 03.11.2025 from Yes Bank Limited, whereby the petitioner came to know that the respondent department had initiated further recovery proceedings by issuing recovery communications dated 01.10.2025 and 09.10.2025 to the said banks.
2.2 Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. The delay was neither intentional nor due to any negligence. The Order-in-Original has been passed in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing was ever granted to the petitioner. Further, the respondent no.3 rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits and overlooking the date of communication.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M R Traders v. UOI 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115, Molana Construction Company v. Central GST Department, Rajasthan [2024]  89 GSTL 353 (Rajasthan)/2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central GST Department, Rajasthan 106 GST 181 (Rajasthan)/D.B. CWP 14658/2024, RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. CWP No. 7260 of 2025, dated 2-7-2025] and RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. CWP No. 11794 of 2025, dated 12-8-2025] argues that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.
5. Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contends that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation.
6. Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond its control, non-adjudication of appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
7. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8. Aside above, our attention has been gone to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh (Punjab & Haryana)/(2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025, wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken.
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:-
(i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.
(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
9. Having given out thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we are in respectful agreement therewith and accordingly, see no reason why the benefit be not accorded to the petitioner therein.
10. In the premise, following the consistent view as already taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay of 450 days (after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
12. Stay petition and all pending application also stand disposed of.