The Rajasthan High Court has condoned a 34-day delay in filing a GST appeal concerning a demand of ₹4,08,514, agreeing with the view that uploading a show cause notice on the common GST portal cannot, by itself, be treated as sufficient service unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.

The bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar set aside the appellate authority’s order rejecting the appeal on limitation and directed it to examine the dispute on merits. The court granted the taxpayer liberty to file a fresh appeal within 30 days of the High Court’s order being uploaded on its website. 

Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026

The Assistant Commissioner had passed the original adjudication order on April 30, 2024, raising the demand on account of an alleged failure to discharge outward GST liability. The taxpayer filed an appeal on October 1, 2024. The High Court recorded that the appeal was delayed by 34 days after allowing the 120-day period referred to in its order.

By an order, the appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred, stating that it lacked the power to condone the delay. The taxpayer subsequently approached the High Court on September 14, 2026.

Before the court, the taxpayer contended that the show cause notice, had not been effectively served and had merely been uploaded on the common GST portal. It also alleged that no proper or meaningful opportunity of personal hearing had been provided before the adjudication order was passed.

The taxpayer further submitted that the adjudication order had also been uploaded on the portal without ensuring its proper communication. According to its submissions, GST compliance was handled by its accountant, and the proprietor did not regularly access or check the portal.

It claimed to have become aware of the notice and adjudication order only in October 2024, when the department contacted it regarding recovery of the demand. Although it then took steps to pursue the statutory appeal, the prescribed filing period had already expired. The taxpayer maintained that the delay was bona fide and unintentional.

In support of its request for relief, the taxpayer relied on several earlier Rajasthan High Court decisions, including M R Traders, Molana Construction Company, Man Singh Tanwar and two matters involving RPC PSIPL JV. It argued that these decisions supported permitting appeals to be considered on merits where sufficient cause explained the delay.

The department opposed the petition, maintaining that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the appellate authority had correctly rejected it. Its counsel also referred to the Allahabad High Court’s decision in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd., in which limitation had been extended through the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, and informed the bench that a special leave petition against that decision was pending.

While considering the competing submissions, the Rajasthan High Court referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others. That judgment had examined the consequences of serving GST notices and orders solely through the common portal.

The conclusions reproduced in the Rajasthan High Court’s order included the principle that portal upload of a show cause notice does not constitute sufficient service without acknowledgment of receipt or a reply from the taxpayer.

The cited judgment also addressed different procedural situations. Where a portal-only notice was followed by an ex parte adjudication order because no reply had been filed, it contemplated restoring proceedings to the show cause notice stage. Where a contested adjudication order had been served only through the portal, it held that the limitation period for appeal would not be triggered merely by that upload.

It further contemplated restoring appeals dismissed on limitation where the underlying adjudication orders had been served only by uploading them on the portal.

The Rajasthan High Court expressly agreed with that view and found no reason to deny its benefit to the taxpayer before it. The bench also noted that earlier decisions of its own court had directed appellate authorities to entertain appeals on merits. 

Addressing the statutory limitation issue, the bench acknowledged that the appellate authority remained bound by Section 107 of the Rajasthan GST and Central GST Acts. Nevertheless, it considered the circumstances that had prevented this taxpayer from filing within time to be beyond its control.

The court concluded that refusing to adjudicate the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the taxpayer. Taking an overall view of the circumstances, it condoned the 34-day delay and set aside the appellate rejection.

The appellate authority was directed to entertain the fresh appeal and decide it on merits without raising the issue of limitation, provided it was filed within the stipulated 30-day period.

The relief concerns the taxpayer’s opportunity to challenge the assessment. The High Court did not quash the original ₹4,08,514 GST demand or decide whether the alleged outward tax liability was correctly determined; those issues remain for consideration in the appeal.

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: Income Tax Addition Can’t Rest On Uncorroborated Papers And Retracted Statement: Calcutta High Court