TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Time for filing appeal under section 107(1) runs from actual communication or portal access; limitation paused until contact details updated</h1> <h3>M/s Sahil Steels Versus State Of Rajasthan and Others</h3> M/s Sahil Steels Versus State Of Rajasthan and Others - 2025:RJ - JD:38423 - DB ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether the period of limitation under section 107(1) of the Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 commences from the date an order is uploaded on the common portal or from the date of communication of the order to the assessee in circumstances where the assessee could not access the portal due to incorrect/old contact details. 2. Whether delay in preferring an appeal can be attributed to the assessee where the assessee had earlier requested updating of mobile number and e-mail ID with the tax authority but the update was effected only after an assessment order was uploaded. 3. Proper interpretation of the phrase 'communication to such person' in section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 and the application of the limitation/condonation scheme under section 107(4) and compliance requirement under section 107(6). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Commencement of limitation - upload on common portal vs. actual communication Legal framework: Section 107(1) prescribes the period of limitation for filing an appeal from an order, referring to limitation commencing from 'communication to such person.' Section 107(4) provides an upper cap of 30 days for condonation of delay. Section 107(6) prescribes compliance requirements when appeal is restored. Precedent Treatment: No precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment; therefore no prior authority was followed, distinguished or overruled. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court adopts a purposive interpretation of 'communication to such person.' Literal reliance on the date an order is uploaded on the common portal is inappropriate where the assessee was unable to access the portal because the registered mobile number and e-mail ID were not updated. The Court reasons that when an assessee has taken steps to update contact details and those steps remain unimplemented by the department, the assessee cannot be charged with ignorance of an order uploaded on the portal. Accordingly, limitation cannot be reckoned from a date when the assessee in practical terms had no means of receiving the communication. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - limitation under section 107(1) cannot be mechanically fixed from the portal-upload date where the assessee could not access the portal due to unchanged contact details; a purposive construction governs 'communication to such person.' Conclusion: The period of limitation must be reckoned from the date on which the assessee was actually able to receive communication (i.e., after the department accepted the requested change of mobile number and e-mail ID), or at the earliest from the date the assessee received a separate, effective intimation (here, attachment intimation). The Appellate Authority erred in taking the portal-upload date as the date of communication in the present facts. Issue 2: Delay attributable to dispute with tax consultant and entitlement to prefer appeal Legal framework: Principles governing limitation and condonation in appeals under the Act of 2017; concept that procedural impediments caused by third parties may affect computation of limitation if they deprive the assessee of effective communication. Precedent Treatment: None cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court notes that the assessee had engaged a tax consultant who provided his own e-mail and mobile number and later refused to provide login credentials. The assessee proactively requested updating of contact details with the Assessing Officer on 05.02.2024; the department action to effect the change was delayed until 17.03.2025. During the intervening period the assessment order was uploaded on 25.07.2024. Given the pending request and the department's eventual acceptance long after upload, the delay in preferring the appeal cannot fairly be attributed to the assessee. The Court rejects the submission that the dispute with the consultant is mere refuge; instead it treats the factual inability to receive communication as legitimate grounds negating responsibility for delay. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an assessee, having taken steps to update contact particulars with the department, is prevented from receiving communications due to departmental delay in effecting those changes, the assessee cannot be held liable for delay in filing appeal that results from lack of effective communication. Conclusion: The assessee's appeal filed immediately after receiving effective intimation (attachment) and after contact details were updated was not time-barred; the Appellate Authority's rejection on the ground of limitation was incorrect in the factual matrix. Issue 3: Application of section 107(4) (condonation) and section 107(6) (compliance) when appeal is restored Legal framework: Section 107(4) limits condonation to a maximum of 30 days; section 107(6) prescribes compliance obligations on restoration or hearing. Precedent Treatment: None cited. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recognizes the limited scope for condonation under section 107(4) and emphasizes that a purposive reading of 'communication' is necessary because of the limited remedial window. The Court restores the appeal to the Appellate Authority's docket and directs that the appeal be heard on merits subject to compliance with section 107(6). The Court thereby applies a remedy tailored to the statutory scheme: vindication of the right to appeal while preserving the statutory mechanism for compliance and condonation. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where procedural facts establish inability to receive statutory communications, equitable restoration of appeal is appropriate subject to statutory compliance; purposive interpretation is warranted given the tight condonation ceiling in section 107(4). Conclusion: The Appellate Authority's order is quashed; the appeal is restored and the Appellate Authority must intimate hearing and decide on merits subject to section 107(6) compliance. Additional Observations (Obiter) The Court records a concern (obiter) that where the department sends attachment orders by e-mail, it should likewise send assessment orders by e-mail to avoid communication gaps and confusion about the date of communication.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
