Physical Form

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has clarified that mere uploading of adjudication orders on the GSTN portal does not amount to “communication” under Section 107 of the GST Act. The bench of Justice G.R.Swaminathan has stressed that limitation for filing appeals would begin only when the order is duly communicated to the assessee, not just uploaded online. While Section 169 of the GST Act permits service of orders through multiple methods—including postal service, email, or portal upload—communication to the taxpayer must be effective. “Mere uploading in the portal by no stretch of imagination would satisfy the requirement of communicating to the assessee,” the bench observed. The dispute began with a surprise inspection carried out at the business premises of Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd., Thoothukudi, on 10th and 11th November 2022 by the State GST authorities. Following the inspection, the department issued show cause notices (SCNs) dated 28.02.2023 under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, alleging tax evasion and proposing demands for the financial years 2020–21 and 2021–22. The company was directed to attend personal hearings and submit replies. In compliance, Sharp Tanks filed written responses and appeared before the authorities on 03.10.2023. However, the explanations were not accepted. Consequently, on 28.02.2024, the department passed adjudication orders in Form GST DRC-07, levying tax, interest, and penaltiesfor both assessment years. As per GST law, an assessee aggrieved by an order under Section 74 can file an appeal within three months under Section 107 of the Act, with a further condonable delay of 30 days. In this case, however, Sharp Tanks did not file appeals within the prescribed period. Their contention was that the orders had not been served to them in physical form or via email but were merely uploaded on the GSTN common portal. The company argued that since it was unaware of the uploaded orders, it could not pursue appellate remedies in time. Consequently, Sharp Tanks approached the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court through writ petitions, seeking to quash the orders and direct the appellate authority to entertain their appeals despite the delay. The central legal issue before the Court, therefore, was whether uploading adjudication orders on the GST portal alone constituted sufficient “communication” under the law for triggering the limitation period to file an appeal. The Court distinguished between the terms “service” and “communication,” holding that the law requires active transmission of the order to the taxpayer. Uploading in the portal is mandatory under Rule 142 but may not suffice in practice, especially for small businesses dependent on consultants. The Court acknowledged the “digital divide,” observing that once registration is cancelled, taxpayers may have no reason or ability to access the portal. The court ruled that since the orders were never communicated, limitation had not begun to run against Sharp Tanks. The State Tax Officer was directed to serve the orders afresh, allowing the company to file appeals under Section 107. The Court also took note of detailed submissions highlighting systemic issues with GST communication. Suggestions included Prominent portal alerts for notices and orders; OTP-based acknowledgments to confirm receipt, with the acknowledgment date treated as the date of service; Mandatory physical postal service in cases where registrations are cancelled; and Functional restrictions on the portal until communications are acknowledged. While not issuing binding directions on these systemic reforms, the Court observed that it was for the GST Council and GSTN to take cognizance and consider necessary technological changes to reduce litigation and safeguard taxpayer rights. Case Details Case Title: Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited Versus The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) Case No.: W.P.(MD)Nos.24684 & 24685 of 2025 and WMP(MD)Nos.19379, 19381, 19393 & 19394 of 2025 Date: 17.09.2025 Counsel For Petitioner: S.Jaikumar, Nitin Chopra Counsel For Respondent: Mr.Sureshkumar Click Here To Read Order Read More: No Income Tax Payable On Compensation Paid By NHAI Against Land Acquisition: Chhattisgarh High Court

No posts to display

Two Senior Chennai Customs Officials Transferred Amid Wintrack Controversy

DGFT to Reconsider Gold Import TRQ Allocation Under India-UAE CEPA : Delhi High Court

BREAKING | Mandatory To Provide 1 Month Gap Between ITR (Audit) Date And Tax Audit Date : Gujarat High Court