The Rajasthan High Court has held that where a GST adjudication order is merely uploaded on the common portal without being effectively communicated to the assessee, the limitation period for filing an appeal cannot mechanically be treated as having commenced. 

The  Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar, sitting at the Jaipur Bench, accordingly condoned a 450-day delay in filing a statutory GST appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits.

The dispute arose from a GST demand of ₹16,11,302 for Financial Year 2018-19, which had been raised on allegations concerning wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit and excess outward tax reported in GSTR-1 as compared with GSTR-3B.

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

The assessee subsequently filed an appeal on October 9, 2025, resulting in a delay of approximately 450 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on June 19, 2026, holding that it lacked power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period.

The taxpayer then approached the High Court, also seeking removal of a hold/lien placed on its bank accounts during recovery proceedings.

It was argued that the delay was neither deliberate nor attributable to negligence. According to the petitioner, the order-in-original had been uploaded on the GST portal under “Additional Notices and Orders” rather than “Notices and Orders”, and no physical copy of the order had been served.

The petitioner contended that it remained unaware of the order until recovery proceedings were initiated. On April 19, 2024, the department had issued Form GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 to the petitioner’s banker, directing remittance of the alleged outstanding amount of ₹16,09,249. A lien or hold was consequently marked on the bank account.

The petitioner stated that it first became aware of the recovery proceedings on October 7, 2025, after receiving a telephone call from a departmental officer. It thereafter filed the statutory appeal on October 9, 2025, specifically stating that October 7, 2025 was the date on which the order first came to its knowledge.

The petitioner further argued that the underlying order itself had been passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice because no opportunity of personal hearing had allegedly been provided.

It was therefore submitted that the Appellate Authority should not have rejected the appeal purely on limitation without examining the circumstances surrounding communication of the order and without considering the substantive dispute on merits.

The State and Union authorities opposed the petition and maintained that the appellate order had correctly applied the statutory limitation provisions and that the appeal was barred by limitation.

The Division Bench acknowledged that the Appellate Authority is ordinarily bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. However, the Court found that the circumstances in the present case warranted judicial intervention.

The Bench observed that the reasons preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal within the prescribed period were circumstances beyond its control. In such circumstances, refusing to examine the appeal on merits could cause grave injury and prejudice to the taxpayer.

The Court also took note of earlier Division Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in which appeals affected by similar circumstances had been directed to be considered on merits.

A significant aspect of the judgment was the Rajasthan High Court’s consideration of the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had held that service of a show-cause notice cannot automatically be regarded as sufficient merely because it has been uploaded on the common portal, particularly where its receipt has not been acknowledged and no reply has been filed.

It further held that where an order-in-original is served only by uploading it on the common portal, the limitation period for filing an appeal would not be triggered in the circumstances identified by that judgment. Where an appeal had already been dismissed as time-barred in such circumstances, the appellate order could be set aside and the appeal restored for adjudication on merits.

After considering the reasoning of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Rajasthan High Court expressly recorded that it was “in respectful agreement” with that view.

The Bench therefore found no reason to deny the benefit of the principle to the petitioner in the case before it. The Court also relied upon the consistent approach previously adopted by the Rajasthan High Court in similar matters involving delayed GST appeals.

Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the 450-day delay in filing the appeal.

The Court noted that a 120-day relaxation under Section 107 of the CGST Act had already been taken into account while granting relief. The Court directed that the Appellate Authority entertain the appeal and adjudicate it on merits.

The taxpayer has been required to file the appeal within 30 days from the date on which the High Court’s order is uploaded on its website. The Court accordingly disposed of the stay petition and all pending applications.

The Court did not decide the underlying GST demand on merits. Its intervention was confined to the limitation issue and the taxpayer’s right to have the statutory appeal entertained. The substantive questions concerning the alleged wrongful ITC availment and difference between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B remain to be examined by the Appellate Authority.

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.

Read More: Pending Regularisation Proceedings Must Be Respected: Supreme Court Quashes Demolition Direction