Madras HC clarifies GST Appeal Limitation Begins Only on Effective Communication, Not on Portal Upload Alone.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner GST Appeals & Ors. [W 2025 (9) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the limitation period for filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act begins only when the order is effectively communicated to the assessee through recognized modes such as personal delivery, registered post, or courier, and mere uploading of the order on the GSTN portal does not constitute effective communication.

Facts:

Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited ('the Petitioner') is a registered taxpayer under GST in Tamil Nadu. The State Tax Officer ('the Respondents') issued adjudication orders under Section 74 of the CGST Act for the financial years 2020-21 and 2021-22, demanding tax, interest, and penalty.

The Petitioner contended that these impugned orders were not served on them in the prescribed manner but were only uploaded on the GSTN common portal, without any other mode of communication like registered post or courier.

The Respondents contended that uploading the orders on the GSTN portal amounted to valid service and that the limitation for filing appeals under Section 107 started running from the date of such portal upload.

The Petitioner filed writ petitions under Article 226, seeking quashing of impugned orders on grounds of limitation and invalid service, and sought direction to condone delay and admit the appeal.

Issue:

Whether uploading orders on the GSTN portal alone amounts to effective communication, thereby commencing limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act, or the limitation begins only on effective communication through prescribed modes?

Held:

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in 2025 (9) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURTheld as under:

• Observed that, Section 107 of the CGST Act prescribes the limitation period for appeals as three months from the date of communication of the order, emphasizing the term 'communicated' rather than 'served.'
• Noted that, Section 169 requires service of notices/orders but distinguishes service from communication; they are not synonymous.
• Further noted that, effective communication requires the order to reach the assessee by tender, messenger, registered post, courier, or other prescribed modes to the last known address.
• Held that, mere portal upload does not fulfil the requirement of communication as the statute obliges the authority to 'communicate' the order, and there is no duty on the assessee to access the portal.
• Noted that, practical difficulties faced by small and medium taxpayers who often depend on consultants and may not have access to GST portal alerts, especially if registration is cancelled.
• Held that, the Respondents to communicate the impugned orders to the Petitioner as per law, clarifying that the limitation period for appeal would start only from the date of such communication and stayed enforcement of the impugned orders till valid communication is effected.
• Further noted the need for portal reforms like mandatory popup notifications, OTP-based acknowledgments, and physical post communication in cancelled registration cases to ensure natural justice.

Our Comments:

This judgment reconciles conflicting precedents and emphasizes statutory interpretation consistent with principles of natural justice and fairness. The Court's distinction between 'service' and 'communication' aligns with the doctrine of reasonable exercise of statutory discretion.

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in Poomika Infra Developers (2025 (4) TMI 1308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) and Axiom Gen Nxt India (2025 (4) TMI 1381 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) upheld the validity of serving notices and orders through the common GST portal. The Court observed that the GST law contemplates multiple modes of service, including electronic service via the GSTN portal, which is an efficient and adequate method given technological advancements. These decisions align with views expressed in Pandidorai Sethupathi (2022 (12) TMI 1028 - MADRAS HIGH COURT) that uploading orders on the portal amounts to valid service and initiate the limitation period for appeal. The rationale includes the statutory provisions allowing service via electronic means, and taxpayers’ duty to monitor the portal. The Court recognized the multi-modal approach under Section 169 of the CGST Act and emphasized that the GST framework balances administrative efficiency with legal fairness. These pronouncements were delivered recently, notably including orders dated August and September 2025.

In contrast, the Madras High Court in Mr. Sahulhameed vs The Commercial Tax Officer [2025 (1) TMI 1021 - MADRAS HIGH COURT],  and in the case of Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders Vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer [2025 (2) TMI 1171 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], took a stricter view, holding that service through registered post or speed post remains mandatory for communication of notices/orders under GST. The Court reasoned that mere uploading on the common portal does not satisfy the “communication” requirement essential to invoke limitation and due process. The judgments emphasize the principle that communication involves actual knowledge and receipt of the documents by the assessees and that the statutory requirement for communication entails tangible delivery, typically by registered post with acknowledgment.

However, the judgments in Poomika Infra Developers Vs. State Tax Officer [2025 (4) TMI 1308 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that service by portal upload in itself is sufficient and is complemented by statutory provisions covering several modes of service, marking a pragmatic stance towards GST notice issuance.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017:

“169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.-

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or

(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or

(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or

(d) by making it available on the common portal; or

(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or

(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.

(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1)….”

Rule 142(1A), Tamil Nadu GST Rules, 2017:

“142. Notice and order for demand of amounts payable under the Act-

(1A) The proper officer may, before service of notice to the person chargeable with tax, interest and penalty under sub-section (1) of Section 73 or subsection (1) of Section 74, as the case may be, communicate the details of any tax, interest and penalty as ascertained by the said officer, in PART A of FORM GST DRC-01A…”

(Author can be reached at [email protected])