Valid communication through GST portal and unexplained delay and laches justified refusal of writ relief.
Upload of an adjudication order on the statutorily recognised common portal constituted valid communication under the OGST Act, 2017 because Section 169 permits communication through any prescribed mode and the portal is a recognised statutory platform under Section 146. The writ court also treated unexplained delay and laches as fatal, since the order was challenged long after its issuance without satisfactory explanation. Relief was therefore refused in writ jurisdiction.
Issues: (i) Whether upload of the adjudication order on the common portal constituted valid communication of the order under the OGST Act, 2017; (ii) whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
Issue (i): Whether upload of the adjudication order on the common portal constituted valid communication of the order under the OGST Act, 2017
Analysis: Section 146 of the OGST Act, 2017 contemplates the common goods and services tax electronic portal for statutory functions, including registration, payment, returns, and related compliances. Section 169 of the OGST Act, 2017 prescribes the modes of communication of an order or notice, and the use of the expression permitting communication by any one of the prescribed methods was read as sufficient compliance if one authorised mode is adopted. Since the order had been uploaded on the common portal, the Court treated that mode as valid communication.
Conclusion: The order was validly communicated to the petitioner through the common portal.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches
Analysis: The Court noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary and may be declined where there is unexplained delay and laches. As the order had been passed in 2023 and challenged only in 2025 without a satisfactory explanation, the Court found the delay in approaching the Court to be fatal to the claim for relief.
Conclusion: The writ petition was liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere in writ jurisdiction and refused relief to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Upload of an order on the statutorily recognised common portal constitutes valid communication when that mode is authorised by the governing statute, and unexplained belated invocation of writ jurisdiction may justify refusal of relief on the ground of delay and laches.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
