Allahabad High Court Questions ‘Deemed Service’ of GST Orders Uploaded on Portal

The Allahabad High Court has entertained a batch of writ petitions challenging GST adjudication orders allegedly served only through uploading on the GST common portal, raising a crucial question on whether such electronic availability amounts to valid “communication” for the purpose of limitation under the GST law. The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla stated that the issue involves a pure question of law impacting statutory remedies and cannot be shut out merely on the ground of availability of an appellate remedy. The ruling came in a batch of writ petitions led by M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd and several other traders and entities, who approached the High Court assailing individual adjudication orders passed against them under Sections 73 and 74 of the Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 and the Central GST Act, 2017. The petitioners contended that neither the show cause notices nor the adjudication orders were ever physically or otherwise effectively served upon them. According to them, they came to know about the adverse orders only when recovery proceedings or other coercive steps were initiated by the department By that time, the statutory period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the GST Acts—three months, extendable by only one additional month—had already expired. In view of settled Supreme Court law that appellate authorities cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit, the petitioners argued that they were left remediless, compelling them to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The department raised a strong preliminary objection, arguing that the writ petitions were not maintainable since the adjudication orders were appealable. They submitted that service had been validly effected by uploading the notices and orders on the GST common portal maintained by the GST Network (GSTN), and in some cases by sending electronic communications to the registered email IDs of the taxpayers. The petitioners contented that mere uploading on the portal, without any effective intimation or proof of actual knowledge, could not be treated as proper “communication” so as to trigger the limitation period for filing appeals. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla, identified the central legal issue as whether an order can be said to have been “communicated” within the meaning of Section 107 of the GST Acts merely because it was uploaded on the GST portal or an email/SMS alert was generated. The court noted that the term “communicated” has not been defined under either the State or Central GST Acts. It therefore examined Section 169 of the GST Acts, which deals with service of notices and orders, along with relevant provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000, to determine whether digital uploading alone satisfies the statutory requirement of communication The High Court traced the evolution of service and appeal provisions under earlier tax laws such as the U.P. Trade Tax Act, 1948, the U.P. VAT Act, 2008, the Central Excise Act, the Customs Act, the Finance Act, 1994, and the Income Tax Act. The court observed that under the pre-GST regime, elaborate safeguards existed for physical service of notices and orders, along with provisions for recall of ex parte orders and liberal application of the Limitation Act. The court noted that the GST regime brought a transformative shift by introducing strict, non-extendable timelines for filing appeals and eliminating statutory provisions for recall of ex parte orders. In such a framework, the manner in which service and communication of orders is effected assumes critical importance, as it directly impacts a taxpayer’s right to challenge adverse orders. The High Court held that the petitions raised a substantial question of law affecting access to justice under the GST framework. It observed that unless an order is effectively communicated to the aggrieved person, the limitation period for filing an appeal cannot begin to run. The court therefore rejected the preliminary objection of the revenue at this stage and held that the writ petitions deserved to be entertained, as the petitioners had plausibly demonstrated that they were deprived of their statutory appellate remedy due to the manner in which service was allegedly effected. Case Details Case Title: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd versus State of UP Case No.: WRIT TAX No. - 2707 of 2025 Date: 19/12/2025 Counsel For Petitioner: Pranjal Shukla Counsel For Respondent: C.S.C., Gopal Verma Click Here To Read Order Read More: Calcutta HC Condones 2,262-Day Delay Citing CESTAT’s “Hyper-Technical” Approach in SVLDRS-Linked Appeal

Allahabad High Court Questions ‘Deemed Service’ of GST Orders Uploaded on Portal

Membership Required

Latest articles

China Plans New Gold Import Rules as Bullion Imports Surge

Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT

Composite Cargo Handling Contracts Can’t Be Split into GTA Services: CESTAT

More like this

China Plans New Gold Import Rules as Bullion Imports Surge

Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT

Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories