The Rajasthan High Court has held that the mere uploading of a show-cause notice on the GST common portal cannot be treated as sufficient service unless the taxpayer acknowledges its receipt or submits a reply and condoned a delay of 115 days in filing a GST appeal and directed the Appellate Authority to decide the dispute on its merits.
The Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar observed that although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the High Court could intervene where the delay arose from circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control.
Buy Now: Think Before You Pay Cash: 50+ Landmark Rulings on Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961
The court noted that refusing to adjudicate the appeal on merits in such circumstances would cause grave injury and prejudice to the taxpayer.
The dispute related to the financial year 2019-20. The Joint Commissioner of State Tax had issued a show-cause notice dated May 8, 2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, proposing a demand of ₹7,78,999.
The proposed demand concerned alleged discrepancies in the company’s outward tax liability, excess availment of Input Tax Credit and interest liability arising from delayed filing or payment of GST returns.
According to the taxpayer, both the show-cause notice and Form GST DRC-01 were unsigned and had merely been uploaded on the GST portal. The company contended that the documents did not come to its knowledge and that it was consequently unable to respond to the allegations.
A reminder was subsequently issued on July 9, 2024, recording that the company had neither filed a reply nor appeared in the proceedings. The Department fixed July 29, 2024 as the date of personal hearing.
The company explained that its director, Sarwan Kumar Mahala, who was responsible for overseeing GST affairs and statutory compliances, was undergoing prolonged medical treatment during the relevant period. As a result, the GST portal could not be regularly monitored.
It was argued that the failure to file a response or appear before the adjudicating authority was neither deliberate nor wilful.
The proceedings culminated in an Order-in-Original dated August 23, 2024, through which the Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand against the company on account of the alleged excess availment of ITC and other discrepancies.
The taxpayer maintained that the adjudication order and the consequential demand were also unsigned and were not effectively served. According to the company, the order was only uploaded on the GST common portal.
The company claimed that it became aware of the demand only in April 2025, when the Department contacted it in connection with recovery proceedings. After acquiring knowledge of the order, the company filed an appeal on April 15, 2025.
The appeal was, however, filed after a delay of 115 days. The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur-II, dismissed it through an order dated June 22, 2026, holding that it had no statutory authority to condone the delay beyond the period permitted under Section 107(4) of the GST law.
Challenging the appellate order, the company approached the Rajasthan High Court. It argued that the delay was bona fide and resulted from a lack of effective service rather than any intentional inaction.
The company relied upon several earlier Division Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in which delayed GST appeals were directed to be considered on merits after the taxpayers demonstrated sufficient cause for not filing them within the prescribed period.
The State authorities opposed the petition and argued that the appeal was barred by limitation and had been correctly rejected by the Appellate Authority.
After considering the rival submissions, the High Court acknowledged that the GST Appellate Authority was bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 and could not itself condone a delay beyond the permissible period.
At the same time, the Bench found that the company had disclosed circumstances beyond its control that prevented it from filing the appeal within time. The court held that depriving the company of an adjudication on merits would cause serious prejudice.
The High Court also relied on the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s ruling in Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. In that decision, it was held that service of a GST show-cause notice could not be considered sufficient merely because the notice had been uploaded on the common portal, unless its receipt was acknowledged or the taxpayer filed a reply.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had further held that where a notice was served only through portal uploading and an ex parte order was passed due to the taxpayer’s failure to reply, the proceedings should ordinarily be restored to the show-cause notice stage.
It had also ruled that where an appeal against an order uploaded only on the common portal was dismissed as time-barred, the appellate order could be set aside and the appeal restored for a decision on merits.
The Rajasthan High Court expressed its agreement with this view and held that there was no reason to deny the same benefit to Ocean Ceratech.
Accordingly, the court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the GST appeal. It directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and adjudicate the company’s appeal on merits, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date on which the High Court’s order is uploaded on its website.
The court did not decide the underlying dispute concerning the alleged excess availment of ITC or the correctness of the ₹7.78 lakh demand. Those questions have been left open for consideration by 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.
