Recently, the Allahabad High Court was seized of a batch of writ petitions filed by various registered dealers challenging individual adjudication orders passed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitions raised a common and recurring grievance concerning the legality of service and communication of show cause notices and adjudication orders through the GST common portal, and the consequential denial of the statutory appellate remedy.
Brief Facts:
The dispute arose when adjudication orders creating tax demands were passed against the petitioners under Sections 73 and 74 of the U.P. GST Act, 2017 / CGST Act, 2017. According to the revenue authorities, the show cause notices as well as the final adjudication orders were served electronically by uploading them on the GST common portal. The petitioners claimed that they had no knowledge of these proceedings or the resulting orders until recovery actions were initiated. By that time, the statutory limitation period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST Act had expired. Consequently, the petitioners approached the High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the Petitioners contended that neither the show cause notices nor the adjudication orders were ever effectively communicated to them. Mere uploading of documents on the GST portal, without actual knowledge or proper intimation, could not amount to “communication” under Section 107 of the GST Acts. The counsel argued that due to such non-communication, the limitation period for filing appeals never commenced, and the denial of an appellate remedy resulted in a grave violation of principles of natural justice. It was further submitted that the rigid limitation framework under the GST regime left the petitioners remediless once the appeal period lapsed.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The counsel for the Respondents, including the State tax authorities and GSTN, raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, asserting that the impugned adjudication orders were appealable under the GST Acts. It was contended that Section 169 of the GST Act. expressly permits service of notices and orders by electronic means, including uploading them on the common portal and sending electronic communications to registered email addresses. According to the Respondents, once the orders were made available on the GST portal, service stood completed in law, and the Petitioners could not bypass the statutory appellate remedy by invoking writ jurisdiction.
Observation of the Court:
The Court noted that the pivotal issue across the batch of writ petitions was whether mere uploading of a show cause notice or adjudication order on the GST common portal could be treated as valid “communication” for the purposes of triggering limitation under Section 107 of the GST Acts. The Court categorically observed that “Unless the orders to be appealed are effectively ‘communicated’ to the person aggrieved… the period of limitation of three months to file such appeal may not start running.”
The Court took cognisance of the petitioners’ submission that they became aware of the adjudication orders only when recovery proceedings were initiated, by which time the statutory limitation period had expired. In this context, the Bench acknowledged that the appellate authority under the GST regime has no power to condone delay beyond the rigid statutory limit, leaving assessees remediless. The Court observed that this consequence assumes greater significance in light of binding Supreme Court precedents.
Referring to Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. and Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., the Court noted that the law is settled that when a statute prescribes a hard limitation period, courts and authorities cannot extend it on equitable considerations. It was observed that, in such a framework, denial of effective communication would result in a complete foreclosure of the statutory remedy, which could not be countenanced.
The Bench further examined Section 169 of the GST Acts and emphasised that while electronic modes of service are statutorily recognised, the concept of “communication” cannot be reduced to a mere formality. The Court remarked that widespread complaints regarding the GST portal and non-receipt of alerts demonstrated that mechanical reliance on portal-uploading alone may defeat principles of natural justice. It observed that “Citizens and other entities may be assessed to pay tax and demands made, only after being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Their right of appeal may not be curtailed, lightly.”
Finally, placing reliance on its earlier decision in M/s Riya Construction v. State of U.P., the Court observed that hundreds of similar matters had arisen due to identical procedural lapses. It noted that the GST framework neither empowers the adjudicating authority to recall ex parte orders nor allows the appellate authority to remand matters, making the first stage of adjudication crucial. The Court therefore underscored that effective communication of notices and orders is integral to fairness under the GST regime, failing which writ jurisdiction may be legitimately invoked.
The decision of the Court:
The Court set aside the impugned adjudication orders passed under the GST Acts on the ground that they were not effectively communicated to the petitioners. Holding that limitation under Section 107 had not commenced, the Court directed remand of the matters to the adjudicating authorities for fresh proceedings after due notice, subject to compliance with conditions stipulated by the Court.
Case Title: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd V. State of Uttar Pradesh and another
Case No.: Writ Tax No. - 2707 of 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Hon’ble Mr Justice Indrajeet Shukla
Counsel for the Petitioner: Adv. Pranjal Shukla
Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C., Gopal Verma
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
