The Rajasthan High Court has held that merely uploading an order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order for computing the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur set aside an appellate order rejecting a taxpayer’s appeal against cancellation of GST registration as time-barred. The court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
The petitioner/assessee is in automobile spare parts and service business in Suratgarh, Rajasthan.
The department issued a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of its GST registration for failure to file returns for a continuous period of six months. Subsequently, an order dated March 26, 2025 cancelled the registration retrospectively from November 6, 2024.
The taxpayer submitted that it learnt about the cancellation only in April 2026. After approaching its accountant, it filed the pending returns and discharged the applicable tax liability and other dues. An appeal against the cancellation order was filed on April 19, 2026.
However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on May 12, 2026, holding that it was beyond the prescribed limitation period and that the delay could not be condoned.
The taxpayer argued that the three-month appeal period under Section 107(1) begins from the date on which an order is communicated to the affected person. Since the cancellation order had never been communicated, the appeal could not be rejected by calculating limitation from an earlier date.
The department maintained that the order had been uploaded on the GST portal. It argued that making the order available on the common portal under Section 169 constituted sufficient service and that the taxpayer was deemed to have knowledge of it.
The court observed that Section 107(1) expressly links the appeal period to communication of the decision or order. Communication serves the purpose of enabling an aggrieved person to challenge an adverse decision within the available statutory period.
The Bench explained that the affected party must have actual or constructive knowledge of the order. It also noted that the Appellate Authority can condone delay only for one additional month beyond the ordinary three-month appeal period. This restricted power made strict compliance with the communication requirement necessary.
Examining Section 169, the court interpreted the service provisions as requiring recourse to the methods in clauses (a) to (c), with clauses (d) to (f) to be followed where the earlier methods were inapplicable.
On the facts before it, the Bench held that uploading the cancellation order on the portal alone did not satisfy the communication requirement under Section 107(1). Consequently, the three-month limitation period could not begin unless the order was served on the taxpayer. M:s Manoj Spares And Service Ce…
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority was unjustified in treating the appeal as delayed by eight months and 23 days.
Taking note of the taxpayer’s submission that it paid the outstanding dues upon learning of the cancellation and promptly filed its appeal, the court condoned the delay, quashed the appellate rejection order and remanded the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The court expressly left the merits of the cancellation dispute open for the Appellate Authority to decide.
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: India Notifies Principal Purpose Test To Deny Tax Benefits Under Mauritius Treaty: FinMin
