The Calcutta High Court has held that under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, the statutory limitation period is concerned with the issuance of the adjudication order and not with its subsequent service upon the taxpayer.
Dismissing a writ petition, the bench of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury ruled that an order digitally signed within the prescribed limitation period does not become invalid merely because it is uploaded on the GST portal or communicated to the assessee on the following day.
The dispute centred on whether an order digitally signed on 30 April 2024, but uploaded on the GST portal in Form GST DRC-07 on 1 May 2024, could be treated as having been validly issued within the statutory limitation period.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
The proceedings originated from a show cause notice issued under Section 73(1) concerning the financial year 2018-19. Following adjudication, the proper officer digitally signed the final order on 30 April 2024, which was subsequently uploaded on the GST portal on 1 May 2024.
The petitioner initially pursued the statutory appellate remedy by depositing the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 of the GST Act. The appellate authority, however, dismissed the appeal. Instead of challenging the appellate decision on merits, the petitioner approached the High Court contending that the adjudication order itself was barred by limitation because it was uploaded after the expiry of the statutory period.
The petitioner argued that merely digitally signing the order within limitation was insufficient. According to the petitioner, an adjudication order becomes complete only when it is communicated or served in accordance with Section 169 of the GST Act and Rule 142 of the GST Rules. Since Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded only on 1 May 2024, the petitioner contended that the order had effectively been issued beyond limitation and was therefore unenforceable.
Reliance was placed upon various judicial precedents interpreting limitation provisions under the Income Tax Act and other statutes to argue that issuance and service are inseparable for completing adjudicatory proceedings.
The State opposed the writ petition by submitting that the adjudication order had in fact been digitally signed by the proper officer on 30 April 2024, which was within the extended limitation period notified under Section 168A of the GST Act.
It argued that Section 73 prescribes only the time limit for passing or issuing the order, while Section 169 separately governs the mode of service. The State further contended that the petitioner had already availed the statutory appellate remedy and could not subsequently challenge the jurisdiction on the basis of service after participating in the proceedings.
The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the GST statutory framework and observed that Section 73 contemplates distinct stages in adjudication—issuance of the show cause notice, adjudication, passing of the order, and communication of the order.
The Court held that these stages perform different legal functions. While passing the order is the exercise of adjudicatory jurisdiction by the proper officer, communication or service merely informs the taxpayer of the decision and enables consequential proceedings such as recovery or appeal.
The Court further observed that Section 169 specifically prescribes the various modes through which notices, orders and communications may be served, including uploading them on the common GST portal. This provision regulates only the mode of communication and does not extend or redefine the limitation prescribed under Section 73 for making the adjudication order.
A significant aspect of the judgment is the Court’s distinction between the expressions “issue” and “service.”
The Court noted that although the two expressions are often used interchangeably in ordinary language, the legislature consciously employed different terminology in different provisions of the GST Act. It held that “issue” refers to the act of making or passing the adjudicatory order by the competent authority, whereas “service” relates to the subsequent communication of that order to the taxpayer through one of the prescribed statutory modes.
The Court held that these expressions cannot be treated as synonymous merely because service follows issuance in the ordinary course.
Rejecting the petitioner’s principal contention, the High Court observed that the GST Act does not make the validity of an order dependent upon its upload on the common portal within the limitation period.
According to the Court, where an adjudication order has been duly signed and issued by the proper officer within the prescribed period, a subsequent upload on the GST portal or communication to the taxpayer does not render the order void or barred by limitation.
The Court also held that, for purposes of filing an appeal, the relevant date remains the date on which the order is served upon the taxpayer, but that consideration is distinct from the limitation governing the adjudicating authority’s power to pass the order.
The petitioner had relied extensively on judgments delivered under the Income Tax Act dealing with reassessment notices and limitation. The High Court distinguished those authorities, observing that the statutory framework of the GST Act differs materially from the provisions interpreted in those decisions.
The Court emphasised that judicial precedents under different enactments cannot automatically be imported into GST law where the legislature has adopted a different statutory scheme and terminology.
Concluding that the adjudication order had been issued within the statutory limitation period, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that limitation under Section 73 is satisfied if the adjudication order is issued within the prescribed period. Service or communication of the order under Section 169 is a separate statutory requirement governing the mode of delivery. An order does not become invalid merely because it is uploaded or served after the limitation period applicable for its issuance. The distinction between issuance and service must be maintained while interpreting the GST Act.
The Court upheld the validity of the assessment order and dismissed the writ petition without any order as to costs.Â
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
