Appellate Delay Caused by Portal-Only Service Condoned and Restored for Adjudication on Merits

By | September 3, 2026
0 Comment
Appellate Delay Caused by Portal-Only Service Condoned and Restored for Adjudication on Merits
Issue
Whether an appeal dismissed as time-barred under Section 107 should be condoned and restored for a decision on merits when the underlying Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original were served exclusively via the GST portal without separate acknowledgment or effective communication.
Facts
  • Proceedings Initiated: SCNs were issued for the period 2019-20 alleging wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC).
  • Adjudication Order: An Order-in-Original (OIO) was passed raising a tax demand pursuant to the SCNs.
  • Portal-Only Upload: The petitioner asserted that the SCNs and OIO were uploaded solely on the GST portal without effective service, preventing timely awareness of the proceedings.
  • Revenue’s Position: The Revenue argued that dispatching to the principal place of business and uploading on the portal constituted valid service, leaving sufficient time to appeal.
  • Dismissal of Appeal: The Appellate Authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 as time-barred due to statutory limitation constraints.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the High Court, seeking condonation of delay and a decision on merits.
Decision
  • Although the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory time limits under Section 107, reasons beyond the petitioner’s control warrant condoning the delay to avoid grave prejudice [Paras 10 & 11].
  • Portal-only service absent actual receipt, acknowledgment, or reply does not trigger the running of the limitation period [Paras 10 & 11].
  • Appeals dismissed strictly on limitation grounds in such portal-only service cases must be restored for adjudication on merits [Paras 10 & 11].
  • The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the matter on merits [Paras 10 & 11].
  • Verdict: Decided in favour of the assessee.
Key Takeaways
  • Portal-Only Service Limitations: Merely uploading an order on the GST portal without personal communication or acknowledgment does not automatically start the limitation clock under Section 107.
  • Writ Court Condonation Powers: High Courts under Article 226 can condone delays beyond the statutory period permitted under Section 107 to prevent grave injustice caused by flawed service.
  • Precedence of Merits Over Technicalities: Technical dismissals based on limitation due to defective or portal-only service will yield to substantive adjudication on merits.
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Shree Mangal Proteins Ltd.
v.
Superintendent, Central Goods and Service Tax
Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12260 OF 2026
AUGUST  18, 2026
Ms. Neetika Kalakar, Ritesh Singh Shekhawat and Prateek Kedawat for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG, Rakesh Choudhary and Vedant Agrawal for the Respondent.
ORDER
Arun Monga, J. – Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024, passed by Superintendent, Central Goods And Service Tax Range (Division-H), Tonk, whereby GST demand of Rs. 7,48,336/- for financial Year 201920 was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 29.01.2025. However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 19.01.2026 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, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional. They submit that the petitioner was not aware of the Show Cause Notices dated 29.05.2024 and 03.08.2024, as the said notices were not effectively served upon the petitioner and were merely uploaded on the GST portal. Consequently, the petitioner could not submit its reply to the said notices. Thereafter, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 was passed, which too was not served upon the petitioner either manually or in hard copy, but was merely uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge of the passing of the said order and consequently, could not prefer the appeal within the prescribed period.
2.1 Learned counsels for the petitioner further submit that the impugned Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.2024 and not the earlier Show Cause Notice dated 29.05.2024. Thus, the petitioner was not even afforded the prescribed period of time to submit its reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.08.2024. Consequently, the impugned Order-in-Original came to be passed without affording the petitioner an effective and meaningful opportunity to respond to the said Show Cause Notice. The petitioner, therefore, submits that the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal were bona fide and attributable to the absence of effective service of the notices and the impugned order.
2.2 Learned counsels for the petitioner lastly submit that the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits.
2.3 Hence, the instant writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned counsels 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] argue 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. They submit that the Order-in-Original dated 22.08.2024 was issued and dispatched to the address of principal place of business of the petitioner and was simultaneously made available on the GSTN Portal. The petitioner had sufficient time to file an appeal against the same before the appellate authority, however, the petitioner failed to do so within the time limit prescribed under the Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
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, reference may also be had 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. We are in respectful agreement with the above view. Accordingly, we see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner therein.
10. Taking a wholesome view, the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 is hereby condoned. Instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal afresh.
11. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 19.01.2026 is set aside. The Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits without raising the issue of limitation, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
12. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.