The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely uploading an adjudication order on the GST portal did not constitute communication sufficient to start the appeal limitation period in the case before it. 

The bench of  Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu condoned the delay and directed the appellate authority to hear the taxpayer’s appeal afresh on merits.

The issue raised was whether the statutory period for filing a GST appeal can begin merely because an order has been uploaded on the portal, without the order being communicated to the affected taxpayer in accordance with the statutory requirements.

BUY NOW: Must Cite Cases Laws In GST Notices via Common Portal Related Disputes

The petitioner/assessee approached the High Court challenging an appellate order dated April 1, 2026. The appellate authority had dismissed its appeal as barred by limitation, holding that the delay could not be condoned.

Siddharth Tatiya, the Counsel on behalf of the assessee argued that the adjudication order had not been duly served and that uploading it on the GST portal could not be treated as valid communication for the purposes of Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Mr. Tatiya relied on the Rajasthan High Court’s recent decision in M/s Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company v. State of Rajasthan, delivered on October 5, 2026. It sought a remand to the appellate authority for consideration of the appeal on merits.

The State opposed the petition and supported the appellate authority’s order.

After considering the submissions, the Bench relied on its earlier ruling in Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company, which examined Section 107(1) read with Section 169(1) of the GST legislation.

The earlier decision emphasised that the requirement to communicate an order to the person aggrieved must be strictly observed, particularly because the statutory framework restricts the authority’s power to condone delay.

As reproduced in the present judgment, the earlier Bench held that the three-month appeal limitation period would not start unless the adjudication order was served on the affected person. It found that merely uploading the order on the GST portal did not amount to communication under Section 107(1) in the circumstances considered.

Applying that reasoning, the Court found that Kakar Automobiles had not been served with the order in accordance with Section 107(1), and that the order had merely been uploaded on the portal.

The Bench also recorded that the taxpayer preferred its appeal immediately upon acquiring knowledge of the order.

The precedent reproduced by the Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur and Others while discussing the exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

That discussion underscored the need for the adjudicating authority to comply strictly with the statutory communication requirements where the appellate authority’s ability to extend limitation is restricted.

The earlier ruling also stated that rules are subordinate to the statute and cannot circumscribe the modes of communication provided by it. It referred to communication through registered post, email and other applicable modes, and treated communication to the affected person as mandatory.

The present decision therefore turns on whether the taxpayer received legally sufficient communication of the order, rather than solely on the date when it appeared on the portal.

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, condoned the delay in filing the appeal and remitted the matter to the appellate authority.

It directed the authority to decide the appeal afresh on merits after giving Kakar Automobiles an opportunity of hearing. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.

The Court did not decide the validity of the underlying GST demand. The relief restores the taxpayer’s opportunity to contest that demand before 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: Can Restricted Second-Hand Goods Be Released After Paying Redemption Fine? CBIC Clarification Sought