The Allahabad High Court has set aside an appellate order dismissing a taxpayer’s appeal solely on the ground of delay, holding that the limitation period for filing an appeal has to be reckoned from the actual communication of the adjudication order, and not mechanically from the date on which the order was passed.
The bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal found that the taxpayer’s assertion regarding the date on which the order was communicated had not been rebutted by any cogent material produced by the department.
The case arose from an appellate order by which the petitioner’s appeal against an assessment/adjudication order had been dismissed exclusively on the ground of limitation. The Appellate Authority did not examine the substantive dispute because it considered the appeal to have been filed beyond the prescribed period.
Buy Now: Recovery Of Tax Dues And Penalty Against Legal Heirs Of A Deceased Assessee : Case Compilation
The petitioner challenged this approach before the High Court, contending that it had acquired knowledge of the Proper Officer’s order only when recovery proceedings were initiated.
According to the petitioner, the adjudication order had been passed on November 9, 2025, but the petitioner had not actually received or become aware of the order on that date. This fact was specifically pleaded in the application seeking condonation of delay filed along with the appeal.
The petitioner argued that the Appellate Authority had nevertheless treated the date on which the order was passed as the date on which it was communicated, despite the absence of material establishing such communication.
The principal legal issue before the Court was whether limitation could begin merely from the date on which an adjudication order was passed, when the taxpayer asserted that the order had not actually been communicated to it on that date.
The High Court noted that the issue was already covered by the Division Bench decision in Bombino Agro Industries Limited v. State of U.P., reported in (2026) 38 Centax 81 (All.), and by the subsequent decision in Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Sai Traders v. State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on May 19, 2026.
Importantly, the Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue did not dispute the legal position relied upon by the petitioner.
The Court reproduced paragraph 15 of its earlier judgment in Manoj Kumar, which lays down the approach to be followed where the taxpayer disputes the date of communication.
The principle is that once the Division Bench has accepted the date of communication stated by the dealer as the actual date of communication, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut that assertion with cogent material. If the Revenue fails to do so, the date declared by the dealer is to be treated as the actual date of communication, and the limitation period begins from that date.
Upon examining the record, the Court found that the date of communication of the Proper Officer’s order was November 9, 2025, and that this date had not been rebutted by the Revenue through any cogent material.
In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the matter required reconsideration by the Appellate Authority rather than dismissal of the appeal solely on limitation.
The finding is significant because it prevents the limitation provision from being applied solely by reference to the date appearing on an adjudication order where the taxpayer disputes having received or been communicated that order on that date.
Justice Piyush Agrawal, hearing the matter in Court No. 7, held that the impugned appellate order could not be sustained in law.
The Court accordingly quashed the appellate order and allowed the writ petition.
The matter has been remitted to the concerned Appellate Authority with directions to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. The authority has also been directed to provide due opportunity of hearing to the parties and consider the principles laid down in Bombino Agro Industries Limited and Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Sai Traders.
The High Court further directed that the reconsideration should be undertaken expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment.
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.
