Limitation for GST appeal depends on proven service of the revisional order, not an uncertain partner's signature.

Limitation for a GST appeal runs from communication of the revisional order to the dealer or person under section 39(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959. Where the record did not prove service of the revisional order on the assessee, the appeal could not be rejected as time-barred merely because one partner signed the proceedings sheet, especially when his authority to represent the assessee was disputed. The appellate authority was required to examine the service issue and the partner's authority on the factual record before deciding limitation. The dismissal as barred by limitation was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal of the appeal as time-barred was sustainable in the absence of proof that the revisional order had been served on the assessee, and whether the signature of one partner on the proceedings sheet could be treated as service of the order.

Analysis: Under section 39(3) of the M.P. General Sales Tax Act, 1959, the limitation period for appeal begins from the date on which the order is communicated to the dealer or person. The record did not show service of the revisional order on the assessee. Reliance on the signature of Kailash Narayan on the proceedings sheet was not sufficient to establish service of the order, particularly when his authority to act for the assessee was itself in dispute. The appellate authority also did not properly examine the factual basis necessary for deciding limitation.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation was unsustainable. The matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide afresh whether the order had been served, whether Kailash Narayan was duly authorised, and thereafter whether the appeal was within limitation.

---