COMMUNICATION OF ORDER UNDER GST ACT

Service of order

Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (‘Act’ for short) provides that 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, -

• 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
• 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
• by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
• by making it available on the common portal; or
• 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
• 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.

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.

When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.

 Appeal

Section 107(1) of the Act provides the procedure for filing appeal before the First Appellate Authority against the order of the Adjudicating Authority. The said section provides that any person aggrieved by any decision of order passed under the Act by an Adjudicating Authority may file appeal to the Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within 3 months from the date on which such the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

Section 112(1) of the Act provides the procedure for filing an appeal before the Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal against the order of the First Appellate Authority. The said section provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed against him under Section 107 or section 108 of this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order within three months from the date on which the order sought to be appealed against is communicated to the person preferring the appeal.

Case laws

In ‘Sharp Tanks and Structural Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) Appeals, Tirunelveli’ – 2025 (9) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, surprise inspection was conducted on the premises of the petitioner by the Department during November 2022. Subsequently show cause notice under Section 74 of the Act was issued for the financial years 2020 – 21 and 2021 – 22. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice and also attended the personal hearing on 03.10.2023. The Adjudicating Authority did not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and confirmed the tax demanded in the notice and also imposed penalties. Against this order the petitioner filed the present writ petition before Madras High Court.

The petitioner submitted before the High Court an appeal could be filed before the First Appellate Authority against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority within 3 months under Section 107 of the Act. If the appeal is filed after the limitation period the First Appellate Authority is competent to condone the delay only for 30 days and not beyond that. The impugned orders were not served on the petitioner and they were uploaded in the GST Portal. Since the petitioner did not know about the uploading of the order on the GST Portal, he could not able to file appeal within the limitation period and also could not able to condone the delay. Therefore, he filed the present writ petition.

The Department contended that the limitation period for filing appeal starts from the time the order is uploaded on the GST Portal. The Department further contended that the petitioner missed the bus and can only rue its fate and the Court cannot come to the remedy of the petitioner.

The High Court considered the submissions made by petitioner and the Department. The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 169 of the Act and Rule 142. Rule 142 (5) provides that the summary of the order shall be uploaded electronically in Form GST DRC – 07, specifying the amount of tax, interest and penalty payable by the person concerned. The same shall be treated as the notice for recovery.

The High Court considered the judgments relied on by the Department and the petitioner. Some of the decisions of the judgments are as below-

• Making an order available on the common portal would tantamount to ‘tendering’ of that order to the recipient and that uploading of orders upon the common portal constitutes ‘proper mode of service’.
• The assessee has the bounden duty to verify the common portal and that any decision, order, summons, notice or communication can be served on the assessee through any one of the methods mention in Section 169 of the Act.
• The order cannot be communicated by e-mail but should be uploaded on the website of the Revenue.
• Uploading the order may be sufficient service but not effective service.
• The Department shall make an endeavour to ensure that in terms of Section 169 of the Act the assessees are served through the common GST portal as also through their personal email and mobile number and that in addition the notice may also be sent through speed post.
• When the Rules provide various modes of service of order, notices etc., they are only the alternative and not cumulative.

The High Court, then analysed the provisions of Section 107 of the Act which provides the procedure for filing appeal. The High Court observed that the provisions of the said section led to conclude that the limitation would start running from the date on which the order or decision is communicated to the assessee. The said section does not say that the limitation starts from the date of service of the order on the assessee. When a statute employs two different expressions, they denote different meanings. The words ‘served’ and ‘communicated’ are not synonyms. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal would not satisfy the requirement of the communicating to the assessee. There is no obligation cast on the assessee to access the portal.

In this case, the impugned order had only uploaded on the portal and not communicated to the petitioner, the limitation has not started running for the writ petitioner. The downloading of the order by the petitioner in the later would not amount communication of the order. It is open to the Department to communicate the impugned order to the writ petitioner. It is open to the writ petitioner to file appeal under Section 107 of the Act. Since the impugned order has not been communicated the same cannot be enforced till such communication.

In ‘Liberty Oil Mills Limited v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals, Thane), GST & Central Excise, Mumbai’ – 2025 (9) TMI 253 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT (High Court, Bombay’ the petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The contention of the assessee that the petitioner that the order neither was uploaded on the portal nor communicated to the petitioner at any time. After the assessee received a show cause notice regarding subsequent period in August. The petitioner applied for a copy of the said order. The copy of the said order was supplied on1 17.08.2023. The appeal was filed on 11.09.2023. The High Court held that the appeal instituted by the petitioner on 11.09.2023 could not have been said to be barred by limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Act. The High Court directed the petitioner to pay Rs.25000/- to the Government hospital since the petitioner gave its willingness to pay some costs for the inconvenience caused in this regard. The High Court set aside the impugned order and restored the appeal.