TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
24 Oct 2026 
The Appeal Clock Must Begin From the Event Prescribed by Law
A GST appeal may be rejected as late, even before the taxpayer's objections to the demand are examined. Before reaching that result, however, the authority must identify when the appeal period legally began. The date printed on an adjudication order, the date of its upload and the date of its communication are not necessarily the same. An elapsed period cannot be treated as appellate delay without first establishing the correct starting point.
This distinction was examined in Shri Shailesh Das, Proprietor of M/s Gandacherra Bricks Industries Versus The State of Tripura, The Commissioner of Taxes, Tripura, The Additional Commissioner of State Tax, (Appellate Authority), Government of Tripura, The Superintendent of State Tax, Charge-Ambassa. - 2026 (10) TMI 1553 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT. The High Court of Tripura, comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Hon'ble Mr Justice S. Datta Purkayastha, decided WP(C) No.195 of 2026. The dispute concerned the rejection of an appeal against a GST adjudication order uploaded on the common portal but not communicated by another mode.
The decision restored the taxpayer's opportunity to contest the order. Its significance lies in examining whether communication had occurred, rather than simply overlooking a lengthy delay. Equally, it does not establish that portal service is invalid in every case or that taxpayers may indefinitely postpone appeals by claiming ignorance. The reasoning depends on the statutory language, the circumstances of service and the knowledge accepted on the particular record.
The Passage of Time Did Not Establish Effective Communication
The petitioner operated M/s Gandacherra Bricks Industries. According to the Department itself, production or manufacturing had ceased from 29.04.2016, even though the GST registration remained active. The department uploaded an adjudication order on the GST portal in 2021. No other mode of communication was used. The petitioner maintained that it discovered the order only when applying for a tax clearance certificate in the first week of February 2024.
An appeal was filed on 12.03.2024. The Appellate Authority treated it as delayed by two years, nine months and one day, and rejected it by order dated 23.12.2025 in Appeal Case No.16/Ch-AMB/2024. The petitioner explained that the apparent delay arose because the order had not come to its knowledge earlier. The dispute therefore required more than comparing the appeal date with a date appearing in the adjudication records.
The reported judgment refers to the original order as dated both 30.03.2021 and 08.02.2021. Those inconsistent references should not be silently resolved by selecting one date. The chronology remains clear: the order was uploaded in 2021, knowledge was claimed and accepted in February 2024, and the appeal was filed the following month. The decisive issue was communication, not the order's age.
A Recognised Mode of Service Must Still Be Used Fairly
Section 169(1)(d) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 recognises making a document available on the common portal as a mode of service. The Department therefore had a statutory basis for using the portal. The question was not whether electronic administration lacked legal recognition. It was whether reliance on that mode alone was reasonable and sufficient in the circumstances before the Court.
Section 169 of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 also provides for direct delivery, postal service, and email, subject to their respective requirements. The choice among available methods is an administrative power. A statutory choice must be exercised fairly; it is not an answer to every service objection merely to say that the selected method appears in the provision.
This does not mean that every order must invariably be served through several methods. The narrower principle is that circumstances may require the authority to use an additional available method to communicate an adverse decision effectively. Here, the Department's knowledge that manufacturing had ceased was relevant. The existence of a permissible method did not remove the responsibility to consider whether that method alone would adequately communicate the order.
Communication Must Make the Appellate Remedy Effective
The principal reasoning followed was that in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited, Rep. by its Authorised Rep. Smt. Nisha Menon Versus The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), The State Tax Officer (Survey Unit), Tirunelveli - 2025 (9) TMI 1149 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. That decision examined the relationship between statutory service and communication for appellate limitation. It recognised portal upload as a prescribed method but explained that the authority's choice must operate reasonably in the circumstances. The practical availability of an appeal mattered, not merely the technical availability of an order online.
The Tripura judgment also recounted the reliance in Sharp Tanks on National Highways Authority of India and Ors. Versus Madhukar Kumar and Ors. - 2021 (9) TMI 1503 - Supreme Court, The Executive Engineer & Anr. Versus M/s Sri Seetaram Rice Mill - 2011 (10) TMI 586 - Supreme Court, and M/s TECHNO PRINTS Versus CHHATTISGARH TEXTBOOK CORPORATION & ANR. - 2025 (2) TMI 1243 - Supreme Court. Their relevance lies in the broader requirement of reasonable administrative action and an interpretation sensitive to the statutory purpose. They should not be described as independently deciding the present GST portal-service issue.
The resulting principle is practical. A right to appeal has limited value if the affected person is treated as having lost it before the order has been effectively communicated. At the same time, effective communication does not necessarily require proof that the taxpayer personally read every page. The legally relevant question remains whether the applicable law and circumstances established communication or attributable knowledge.
Digital Administration Must Account for the Taxpayer's Actual Circumstances
Electronic systems improve access, preserve records, and reduce reliance on physical correspondence. These advantages do not eliminate differences in taxpayers' ability to monitor the system. The judgment recognised the digital divide and the position of smaller businesses that depend on consultants for GST compliance. A system designed for efficient administration must still support meaningful participation.
The judgment discussed M/s. Abitha Timber Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Jalaideen Jafar Sathik Versus The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Tenkasi. - 2024 (4) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, where the taxpayer's circumstances were relevant to the inadequacy of portal-only notices. It also referred to Tvl. Leto, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr. Raju Nandhakumar Versus The Deputy State Tax Officer – 1, Coimbatore - 2025 (6) TMI 1780 - MADRAS HIGH COURT, which recognised portal service but considered the need to explore other methods when no response was received. M/s. Raj International Versus Additional Commissioner CGST Delhi West & Ors. - 2025 (6) TMI 423 - DELHI HIGH COURT, supported efforts to communicate through additional available channels.
These decisions do not create a general exemption for small businesses or persons engaging consultants. Nor does stopping production automatically establish that GST registration was cancelled or that compliance responsibilities ended. In the present case, registration remained active. The cessation of manufacturing was a relevant circumstance that required a fair choice of communication method, not a complete release from statutory obligations.
Constructive Knowledge Cannot Be Assumed Without Examining the Record
The Department relied on the upload as sufficient notice. On the particular facts, the High Court rejected the proposition that it gave the petitioner constructive knowledge of the order. Consequently, limitation did not begin merely from the date of that order. The knowledge accepted in February 2024 provided the relevant starting point for examining the appeal filed in March 2024.
An illustration helps explain the distinction. A taxpayer who replies to an order, seeks its rectification, or expressly refers to its contents may face records that contradict a later claim of ignorance. A taxpayer against whom the only available fact is an old portal upload presents a different evidentiary question. These situations cannot automatically receive the same answer. The records must establish what was communicated and when it was communicated.
The judgment therefore does not make the taxpayer's assertion decisive in every case. Equally, a portal entry does not necessarily answer every communication dispute. Neither claimed ignorance nor claimed service should replace examination of the supporting record. The key distinction is between knowledge established by the facts and knowledge assumed solely because an electronic document existed.
The Wider Portal-Service Question Requires Attention to Supreme Court Proceedings
The Department cited M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another Gopala Trading Company Versus State of U.P. and another And M/s Dot Onn Business Solution Pvt. Ltd Versus Assistant Commissioner Ghaziabad And Shivalik Sales, Shivalik Sales, Durgesh Automobiles Versus State of U.P. and 2 others And M/s Singh Associates, M/s Vrinda Polymer, Bachche Lal Gupta, M/s Jay Bholey Transport Company Versus State of U.P. and another And M/s Futureworld Greenhomes Private Limited Versus The Union of India and another - 2025 (12) TMI 1598 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, to support electronic service. The Tripura judgment explained that the Allahabad decision recognised portal service as permissible but distinguished that recognition from the automatic application of the statutory deeming fiction. It therefore did not accept the Department's reliance as sufficient to defeat the petitioner's case.
A relevant Supreme Court order, not discussed in the above-mentioned Tripura judgment, requires attention. In STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. Versus M/s BAMBINO AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD & ANR. - 2026 (10) TMI 1563 - SC Order, the Supreme Court passed an order on 29.05.2026, issuing notice and staying the Allahabad High Court's judgment until the next hearing. In simple terms, the Supreme Court temporarily suspended the operation of that judgment while it considered the challenge. Through that short order, the Supreme Court did not finally decide whether portal upload alone amounts to sufficient communication to start the appeal period.
The practical effect was subsequently recognised in M/s Maa Gayatri Inter Prises, Abdul Rehman Traders, Mohammed Salim, Paradise Hospitality Services, M/s Shivam Ent Udhyog, M/s Sk Buildedrs, M/s Hanzala Brick Field, M/s Rst Infocom Private Limited AND Others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Union of India and others. - 2026 (10) TMI 793 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . The Allahabad High Court recorded that the operation and effect of Bambino Agro had been stayed. It therefore declined to treat portal service as deficient on the strength of that decision while the issue awaited the Supreme Court's determination. A judgment under an operative stay cannot be relied upon in the same manner as an unstayed decision. However, the stay itself should not be presented as a final ruling that every portal upload necessarily constitutes effective communication.
The separate Tripura judgment must also be understood accurately. The Supreme Court's order in the Bambino Agro proceedings did not, by itself, stay or set aside the Tripura judgment. The Tripura ruling therefore requires examination on its own facts and reasoning, particularly the circumstances that made additional communication necessary. Nevertheless, it would be too broad to say that the Supreme Court has finally settled the wider portal-service question in favour of either taxpayers or the Department. Before relying on these decisions in another case, professionals should check the latest Supreme Court orders and the precedents applicable in the relevant jurisdiction.
The Starting Point Must Be Identified Before Delay Is Condoned
Section 107(1) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 provides the taxpayer with an ordinary three-month appeal period from the date of communication of the decision or order. Section 107(4) of the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits a further one-month extension where sufficient cause is established. The ordinary statutory framework therefore does not grant an unrestricted power to excuse delay.
However, the extent of condonable delay is not the first question where commencement itself is disputed. If communication occurred later than the authority assumed, the calculation must be corrected first. A period that elapsed before the legally relevant starting point cannot simply be added to the taxpayer's delay. Determining when time began and deciding whether to excuse subsequent delay are separate exercises.
The operative directions expressly condoned delay, while the reasoning also treated the appeal as timely when calculated from knowledge in February 2024. Both aspects should be stated accurately. The result cannot be converted into a general declaration that appellate authorities may condone delays of several years beyond their statutory powers. The relief rested on the accepted failure of effective communication and the resulting error in calculation.
Restoring the Appeal Did Not Cancel the Underlying Demand
The Appellate Authority set aside the appellate rejection order dated 23.12.2025 and restored the appeal to the Appellate Authority. The authority was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, within three months. The resulting order was also required to be communicated by a mode other than merely uploading it on the portal.
That final communication direction is important. The relief did not stop at identifying the earlier failure; it required a practical step to prevent repetition. A fresh appellate decision would have little value if its communication generated another dispute about when the taxpayer could challenge it. The direction linked the hearing, the decision and its communication as parts of an effective remedy.
Nevertheless, the original adjudication was not finally annulled on its substantive merits. The tax allegations and the petitioner's defence remained for appellate examination. A restored opportunity to contest liability is not a finding that no liability exists. The judgment reopened the proper forum rather than replacing that forum's determination.
Establish Communication Before Calculating Delay
A service dispute requires a clear timeline showing when the order was issued, how it was communicated, when the taxpayer learned of it, and when the appeal was filed. A taxpayer claiming later knowledge should support that explanation with records and act promptly upon discovery. The Department and the Appellate Authority must examine those records before rejecting the appeal as late. The order date cannot automatically replace the communication date as the starting point for limitation.
Effective Communication Protects the Right to Appeal
The judgment does not invalidate portal service or excuse every delayed appeal. It requires examining whether the order was effectively communicated before treating the appeal as late. Restoring the appeal preserved the opportunity to contest the demand; it did not cancel the demand or decide its merits.
***