The Bombay High Court has set aside an order rejecting a GST appeal as time-barred, holding that regular filing of returns and payment of taxes on the GST portal cannot, by themselves, establish knowledge of an adjudication order uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” section.
The Bench of Justice M. S. Karnik and Justice Sandesh D. Patil found that the appellate authority had failed to properly examine whether the adjudication order had been communicated to the company for the purposes of Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026
The Court restored the company’s opportunity to pursue its statutory appeal on merits. It expressly left open the challenge to the underlying tax demand, including the allegations concerning denial of a personal hearing. Elster Metering Private Limited
The company manufactures metering, flow measurement and control equipment, including systems used in the gas sector.
The dispute concerned an invoice relating to the supply of 6,288 gas meters to Mahanagar Gas Limited, Thane, valued at approximately ₹60.66 lakh. The tax department identified a discrepancy between the output tax liability declared in GSTR-1 and the liability reflected in e-way bill data.
According to the company, the goods covered by the single invoice were transported in two vehicles, requiring the generation of two e-way bills. However, the entire invoice value was entered in each e-way bill instead of being divided between them.
The company maintained that this duplication explained the mismatch and furnished its explanation through emails dated March 21 and March 22, 2024, along with copies of the invoice and e-way bills.
On April 2, 2024, the department issued a scrutiny notice in Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61 of the CGST and Maharashtra GST Acts. The company replied on May 5, 2024, reiterating its explanation and enclosing supporting documents.
The department subsequently issued an intimation in Form GST DRC-01A on May 15, 2024, followed by a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) on May 31, 2024.
The company submitted another reply in Form GST DRC-06 on July 1, 2024, producing the invoice, e-way bills and earlier correspondence.
Nevertheless, the adjudicating authority passed an order on August 29, 2024, confirming the demand with interest and penalty.
Before the High Court, the company argued that no personal hearing had been granted under Section 75(4). It also contended that the adjudication order reproduced its reply but rejected the explanation for want of supporting documents, even though the reply recorded that the documents had been enclosed.
The company stated that the adjudication order was uploaded under the portal’s “Additional Notices and Orders” section instead of the “View Notices and Orders” section. It claimed to have become aware of the order only in February 2025.
It filed an appeal on February 25, 2025, together with an application for condonation of delay. The appellate authority rejected the appeal on April 24, 2025, without examining the merits.
The appellate authority reasoned that the order had been properly served electronically and that the company’s regular filing of returns and payment of taxes demonstrated familiarity with the portal. It also found the reasons offered for the delayed appeal insufficient.
The High Court rejected the appellate authority’s approach.
It observed that Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month appeal period from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to the person concerned. The relevant inquiry, therefore, concerned communication of the particular order.
The Bench found that the adjudication order had been placed under “Additional Notices and Orders,” rather than the section where a registered person would ordinarily look for notices and orders.
The Court held that the appellate authority’s reasoning improperly equated periodic return filing with knowledge of an order uploaded under a different tab. Its approach focused on service in the abstract rather than the communication required by Section 107(1).
The Bench also found that the appellate authority had failed to discuss the specific explanation offered in the delay-condonation application. Merely describing the explanation as insufficient did not adequately address the company’s case.
The Court relied on its earlier decision in T. S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which concerned notices and an order uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” section.
It also referred to Supreme Court decisions addressing the meaning of communication and the relevance of actual or constructive knowledge when calculating limitation for challenging a decision.
Applying those principles, the Bench found that the appellate authority’s conclusion could not be sustained merely because the company used the portal for routine compliance.
The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the orders complied with natural justice and that the company should approach the GST Appellate Tribunal.
The High Court nevertheless entertained the petition in view of the allegations concerning breach of natural justice. It referred to the principles governing exceptions to the alternative-remedy rule.
The Bench also relied on Tecnimont Private Limited v. State of Punjab for the proposition that restrictions on an appellate authority’s power to extend limitation do not, by themselves, curtail the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Court allowed the company’s alternative prayer seeking condonation of delay and revival of its appeal.
It quashed the appellate order and directed that the appeal be decided on merits through a reasoned and speaking order after granting the company an opportunity of personal hearing.
The company was directed to appear before the appellate authority on October 21, 2026, at 11 a.m., with a copy of the judgment. The appellate authority was requested to decide the appeal expeditiously.
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: High School Fees And Surplus Alone Can’t Justify Denial Of Charitable Tax Registration: ITAT
