Mere Upload Of Order On GST Portal Without Separate Service

Mere Upload Of Order On GST Portal Without Separate Service Does Not Trigger Appeal Limitation Period

Issue

Whether the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is triggered when an Order-in-Original is merely uploaded on the GST Common Portal without separate physical service or acknowledgement.

Facts

The Order-in-Original for a tax demand pertaining to the period 2020-21 was solely uploaded on the GST Common Portal.
The petitioner asserted that no separate service of the order occurred and no acknowledgement of receipt was obtained by the Revenue.
The petitioner sought liberty from the High Court to file a statutory appeal against the uploaded assessment order.
The Revenue opposed the writ petition, contending that the limitation period for filing the appeal had already expired based on the portal upload date.

Decision

Held, yes. The High Court observed that mere upload of an order on the GST Common Portal, in the absence of a separate acknowledgement or reply, does not constitute valid or sufficient service under Section 169.
Held, yes. Since the impugned order was only uploaded on the portal, the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 was not triggered against the petitioner.
Held, yes. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a statutory appeal within four weeks, with directions to the appellate authority to entertain it on merits without rejecting it on limitation grounds.

Key Takeaways

Portal Upload Alone Is Not Valid Service: Merely uploading an order on the GST Common Portal does not automatically constitute sufficient legal service unless backed by acknowledgement or proof of service under Section 169.
Limitation Window Stays Untriggered: The time limit for filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 commences only from the date of valid service of the order, not from an unacknowledged portal upload.
Protection Against Limitation Dismissals: Taxpayers facing appeals barred by time due to unacknowledged portal-only uploads can seek directions to have their appeals heard on merits.

HIGH COURT OF DELHI

H.K. Impex

Commissioner of DGST

ANIL KSHETRAPAL and Bharat Parashar, JJ.

W.P.(C) No. 13924 of 2026

SEPTEMBER 21, 2026

Khursheed Ahmad, Mohd Kamil and Ms. Shahin, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Urvi Mohan, Adv. for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Through the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner inter alia seeks the following reliefs:

“i. Your Lordship may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned unsigned summary order dated 28.02.2025 passed u/s 73 of SGST/CGST by creating a demand of Rs. 1,40,25,732 /- in FORM GST DRC – 07 for F.Y. 20202021 (Annexure P-1);

ii. Your Lordship may be pleased to Issue a Writ/direction quashing the impugned unsigned SCN dated 21.11.2024 for F.Y. 2020-2021 (Annexure- P-3);”

2. In substance, the Petitioner seeks liberty to avail the appellate remedy against the Impugned Order by claiming the benefit of the period of limitation as explained by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026] 188 taxmann.com 812/117 GST 230/112 GSTL 192 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2026) 44 Centax 371 (P&H).

3. In Luxmi Traders (supra), the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the issue of service of notices and orders through the Common Portal and held that mere uploading of a notice on the additional tab of the portal, in the absence of acknowledgement of its receipt or filing of a reply, would not constitute sufficient service. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:

“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 case 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.”

4. Learned counsel representing the Respondents submits that the period of limitation for filing an appeal has already expired and therefore, the Petitioner cannot now be permitted to avail the appellate remedy.

5. Learned counsel representing the Petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the Impugned Order was merely uploaded on the Common Portal and was never otherwise served upon the Petitioner.

6. Learned counsel representing the Respondents has sought to distinguish the judgment in Luxmi Traders (supra). However, having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is not persuaded that the said judgment is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.

7. In view of the aforesaid legal position and the facts of the present case, the Writ Petition is allowed. The Petitioner is granted liberty to file an appeal against the Impugned Order within a period of four weeks from today.

8. In the event such appeal is filed within the aforesaid period, the same shall be entertained and decided on merits without being rejected on the ground of limitation.

9. With these observations, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.