TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Background
One of the most common misconceptions under the GST law is that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act begins from the date mentioned on the adjudication order. Consequently, many taxpayers as well as appellate authorities assume that if an appeal is filed beyond three months from the date of the order, a condonation application becomes mandatory.
This approach is contrary to the express language of the statute. Section 107 does not prescribe limitation from the date of the order. It prescribes limitation from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person.
Therefore:
- If the appeal is filed within three months from the date of communication of the order, it is within limitation and no application for condonation of delay is required.
- If the order has never been communicated—either actually or constructively—the limitation period does not commence at all. In such a case, there is no delay in the eyes of law.
1. Statutory Scheme under Section 107
Section 107(1) of the CGST Act provides that any person aggrieved by a decision or order may file an appeal within three months from the date on which such decision or order is communicated to him.
The Legislature has deliberately used the expression “communicated” and not “passed”, “made”, “issued” or “dated”. This distinction is neither accidental nor insignificant.
An adjudication order may be signed on one date, uploaded on another date and served on a still later date. For the purpose of limitation, only the date of communication is relevant.
The statutory right of appeal cannot be curtailed merely because an order existed in the departmental records without being communicated to the person affected by it.
________________________________________
2. Date of Order is Not the Starting Point
Suppose an adjudication order bears the date 1 January, but is served, may be on GSTN Portal, upon the taxpayer only on 20 January → The limitation for filing an appeal begins from 20 January, not from 1 January.
Similarly, if the department merely uploads the order on the portal but fails to establish that the order was effectively communicated as per the law → the date of uploading by itself cannot automatically become the starting point of limitation.
The decisive factor is communication, not merely the existence of the order.
________________________________________
3. Actual Communication and Constructive Communication
Communication may be either:
• Actual communication, where the order is served through one of the recognised modes prescribed under Section 169 of the Act; or
• Constructive communication, where the surrounding circumstances clearly establish that the taxpayer had knowledge of the essential contents of the order.
However, constructive communication cannot be presumed. It must be established on the basis of reliable evidence. The burden is generally upon the department to establish such communication.
Illustration: Suppose an adjudication order relating to a person whose GST registration has already been cancelled is merely uploaded on the GST portal without any accompanying e-mail or SMS alert. Since such a person ordinarily has no occasion to access the GST portal after cancellation of registration, mere uploading of the order may not, by itself, constitute communication. In such a case, the limitation period would commence only from the date on which the person acquires actual or constructive knowledge of the order. [Service Company India vs. U.O.I. - 2025 (8) TMI 1641 (All.-HC) relied]
Continuing further, suppose, the department attaches the person’s bank account six months after passing the adjudication order, and the person first comes to know of the order on account of such attachment, the date of bank attachment may constitute the date of constructive communication of the adjudication order, and the limitation period for filing an appeal would ordinarily commence from that date.
________________________________________
4. Supreme Court on the Meaning of the term “Communication”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that limitation against an aggrieved person begins only when the order is communicated or when the person acquires actual or constructive knowledge of its essential contents.
(i) Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh vs. Dy. Land Acq. Officer- 1961 (3) TMI 93 (SC):
This landmark judgment laid down the principle that limitation cannot commence merely because an order has been made. The order must be communicated to the affected person, either actually or constructively. A person cannot be expected to challenge an order of which he has no knowledge. [Also, State of Punjab vs. Mst. Qaisar Jehan 1963 (2) TMI 49 - Supreme Court]
(ii) M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd. vs. CCE - 1991 (9) TMI 71 (SC-3J)
The Hon’ble Court held that an adjudication order becomes effective only when it is issued or communicated. Merely signing the order or retaining it in departmental files does not amount to communication.
(iii) Assistant Commissioner (CT) vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. - 2020 (5) TMI 149 (SC)
Although the principal issue in this case related to the statutory limitation for filing appeals, the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded on the settled principle that limitation is to be computed from the date of communication of the assessment order. The judgment also reiterates that once limitation commences, courts cannot ordinarily extend the period beyond what the statute permits.
Collectively, these decisions establish that communication is the foundation upon which limitation rests.
________________________________________
5. Brief Reference to High Court Decisions
Several Hon’ble High Courts have applied these principles that communication is the trigger for limitation, while interpreting sections 107 and 169 of the CGST Act.
• Madras High Court in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. -2025 (9) TMI 1149 (Mad. HC) emphasised that uploading an order on the GST portal cannot automatically be equated with communication unless the statutory requirements are satisfied.
• Allahabad High Court in Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. -2025 (12) TMI 1598 (All. HC) held that limitation under Section 107 commences only upon effective communication of the order and observed that mere uploading of an order on the GST portal may not, by itself, amount to communication. (The operation of this judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court in a SLP. Though the final judgment will determine whether mere uploading on the GST Common Portal is a sufficient “communication”, yet we have other judgments by the Supreme Court defining the term “communication”, certainly in different enactments.)
• Delhi High Court has also recognised that limitation under Section 107 is linked with communication of the order and that disputes regarding service or communication have to be examined in the light of Section 169 of the CGST Act.
________________________________________
6. “Knowledge” vs. “Delivery” of the Order
The concepts of delivery (or service) of an order and knowledge of an order are closely connected but are not “synonymous”.
Delivery refers to the act of serving the order through one of the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act, whereas knowledge denotes the point at which the aggrieved person becomes aware of the existence and essential contents of the order.
Ordinarily, lawful delivery results in knowledge and, therefore, constitutes communication. However, in exceptional cases, delivery may not result in actual knowledge—for example, where the order is sent to an incorrect e-mail address or is otherwise not brought to the notice of the taxpayer. Conversely, even in the absence of formal delivery, a person may acquire actual or constructive knowledge of the order through subsequent events, such as recovery proceedings, attachment of a bank account, or supply of a copy of the order during departmental proceedings.
________________________________________
7. “Communication” and “Service” are not identical
Another important aspect which often escapes attention is that the Legislature has used two different expressions in the CGST Act.
• Section 107 speaks of “communication” of the order.
• Section 169 prescribes the various modes of “service” of notices and orders.
The use of different expressions indicates that the Legislature did not intend both expressions to be synonymous.
Service under Section 169 is the statutory mode by which communication is ordinarily effected. However, the purpose of service is to ensure communication. Therefore, where the department fails to establish effective communication of the order, mere reliance upon the date mentioned on the order or a mechanical assertion that the order was uploaded on the portal cannot defeat the statutory right of appeal.
________________________________________
8. Communication is a “Question of Fact”
Whether an order has been communicated is essentially a question of fact.
Once the taxpayer affirms the date of communication (may be on oath), the burden ordinarily lies upon the department to establish that the order was communicated in accordance with Section 169 of the CGST Act or that the taxpayer otherwise acquired actual or constructive knowledge of its essential contents.
Mere existence of the order in the departmental records is not communication.
________________________________________
9. Filing of Appeal within three months from Communication
The most important consequence flowing from the above principles is this:
If the taxpayer is able to establish all the four following points, that—
i. the adjudication order was never served;
ii. there was no actual communication;
iii. there was no constructive communication; and
iv. the department is unable to prove lawful communication under sec 169,
then the limitation prescribed under Section 107 never commences.
If an appeal is filed within three months from the date of communication, there is absolutely no delay. Consequently, the question of filing an application for condonation of delay simply does not arise.
A condonation application becomes relevant only where the appeal is filed after expiry of the prescribed limitation period, but still within the additional period during which the Appellate Authority is empowered to condone the delay.
Hence, the issue in such a case is not condonation of delay. The real issue is whether limitation ever commenced.
________________________________________
10. Practical Takeaway
The issue of communication is a question of fact. Where an appeal is sought to be filed beyond the apparent limitation period on the ground that the adjudication order was never communicated, the taxpayer should be prepared to establish, with credible evidence, that there was neither actual nor constructive communication of the order. The following practical steps may strengthen such a claim:
1. Ascertain the mode of service adopted by the department. Obtain the departmental records, wherever possible, to verify whether the order was served in any of the modes prescribed under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
2. Verify the GST portal. Check the date on which the order was uploaded and whether it was actually made available in the taxpayer's login. Mere uploading, without more, may not always establish effective communication, depending upon the facts of the case and the prevailing judicial position.
3. Preserve evidence regarding non-receipt. If no e-mail or SMS alert was received, retain relevant records, screenshots, proof of delivery via speed post/courier receipts or other material, wherever available, to support the plea that the order never came to the taxpayer's notice.
4. Identify the first date of knowledge. Clearly ascertain and document the date on which the taxpayer first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of the order—for example, upon receipt of a recovery notice, bank attachment, inspection proceedings, or supply of a copy of the order by the department.
5. Maintain contemporaneous records. Preserve copies of the bank attachment order, recovery notice, e-mails, correspondence, or any other document demonstrating when the order first came to the taxpayer's knowledge.
6. File the appeal without delay after acquiring knowledge. Even where limitation is disputed, the appeal should be filed promptly after the first date of actual or constructive knowledge. Any unexplained delay thereafter may weaken the taxpayer’s case.
7. Plead the facts specifically. The memorandum of appeal should clearly state that the adjudication order was never communicated, specify the manner in which the taxpayer first acquired knowledge of the order, and explain why the limitation period should be computed from that date. Do not merely plead “non-service”; specifically plead “absence of actual as well as constructive communication”.
8. Support the plea with an affidavit, wherever appropriate. An affidavit narrating the facts relating to non-communication and the first date of knowledge may add credibility, particularly where the issue is likely to be contested.
________________________________________
Conclusion
The statutory scheme of Section 107 is clear and unambiguous. The limitation period for filing a GST appeal begins only from the date on which the adjudication order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Of course, communication may be actual or constructive; but, if there is no communication, there is no delay.
The right of appeal is a valuable statutory right. It cannot be defeated by presuming communication where none exists or by calculating limitation from the date of the order instead of the date on which the order is legally communicated.
The GST law seems to be simple
No communication, no commencement of limitation for appeal
no commencement of limitation, no delay
and where there is no delay, the question of condonation does not arise.
*****