2025 (11) TMI 363 - HC - GST

Petition allowed; GST orders of 21.03.2025 and 25.12.2023 quashed due to portal upload error and non-fatal delay

The HC allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders dated 21.03.2025 and 25.12.2023. The court held that proceedings had been initiated and the ... Dismissal of petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay - discrepancies in the return - valid service of notice or not - order uploaded under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders' of the GST portal, instead of 'Notices & Orders' tab - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the proceedings were initiated and the order dated 25.12.2023 was uploaded under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders' of the GST portal, instead of 'Notices & Orders' tab. The issue in hand is no more res integra and the same has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] and Tasneef Ahmad Mirza [2024 (10) TMI 1448 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. The impugned order dated 21.03.2025 passed by respondent no.2 as well as the impugned order dated 25.12.2023 passed by respondent no.3.are hereby quashed - petition allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether an assessment/order uploaded under the GST portal's 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab amounts to valid service such that limitation for filing an appeal begins to run from the date of upload. 2. Whether the appellate authority under section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act has power to condone delay in filing appeal where the assessee claims non-receipt of the order due to its being uploaded under an improper tab on the GST portal. 3. Whether departmental orders uploaded under an incorrect portal tab can be treated as having been 'served' by deemed service principles, and the consequential relief available if deemed service is not attracted. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of service by uploading order under 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab Legal framework: Service of orders and commencement of limitation for filing statutory appeals under the GST regime depend on communication of the order to the taxpayer; the GST portal is the electronic medium designated for issuance/communication of notices and orders. Precedent Treatment: The Court applies and follows earlier decisions of the High Court (Division Bench and Single Bench precedents of this Court) which addressed whether uploading orders under incorrect portal tabs constitutes effective service and when limitation begins to run. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court observes that uploading an assessment order under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab - as opposed to the designated 'Notices & Orders' tab - resulted in non-awareness of the order by the taxpayer. Given the functional purpose of the portal tabs and the taxpayer's lack of knowledge, the Court found that deemed service could not be conclusively presumed merely by portal upload in the incorrect location. The Court treats the facts that the order was not brought to the taxpayer's attention and that reliance on automatic upload to start limitation would be inequitable. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an order is uploaded on the GST portal in a location not ordinarily accessed or in a tab other than the designated 'Notices & Orders', deemed service is not automatically attracted, and limitation may not begin to run from such upload. Obiter - general observations on best practices for portal uploads and administrative safeguards. Conclusion: The uploading of the impugned assessment order under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab did not constitute effective service for the purposes of initiating the limitation period in the facts of the case. Issue 2 - Power of appellate authority under section 107 to condone delay when non-receipt is pleaded Legal framework: Section 107 (appeals to appellate authority) prescribes the appellate mechanism under the CGST Act; condonation of delay typically falls within the power of the appellate forum subject to statutory constraints and established principles of limitation and natural justice. Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on earlier pronouncements by this Court which held that where institutional or procedural defects (including incorrect portal uploads) result in non-communication, the appellate authority must examine whether there is a basis to entertain an appeal out of time; those authorities guide the allocation of jurisdiction and remedial powers. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court rejects the appellate authority's blanket position that it had 'no power to condone the delay under section 107' when the taxpayer pleaded non-receipt due to portal misplacement. The Court reasons that jurisdictional and equitable considerations require the authority to examine the factual matrix - including whether deemed service can be presumed - before refusing to entertain condonation. The authority cannot refuse jurisdiction solely on the ground that it lacks power to condone without considering factual pleas of non-communication arising from administrative error. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an appellate authority under section 107 cannot mechanically refuse to condone delay where there is a plausible factual foundation (such as mis-upload on the GST portal) that negates deemed service; it must adjudicate the question of service/condonation on merits. Obiter - procedural guidance on how appellate authorities should record reasons when rejecting condonation. Conclusion: The appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of delay and lack of power to condone; the matter required adjudication on whether the order was effectively served and whether condonation was permissible in the circumstances. Issue 3 - Consequences and appropriate relief where deemed service not attracted due to incorrect portal upload Legal framework: Principles of natural justice and statutory appeal timelines require that notice be reasonably communicated; where service is defective, equitable relief may include quashing the impugned proceeding and remanding for fresh adjudication with proper notice and opportunity to be heard. Precedent Treatment: The Court follows prior decisions of this Court which have quashed departmental orders uploaded in incorrect sections of the GST portal and remanded matters for fresh consideration with appropriate notice periods and opportunity to file replies. Interpretation and reasoning: Given that the original assessment order was uploaded in an incorrect tab, the Court found that the petitioner was deprived of effective opportunity to know of and challenge the order within prescribed time. In balancing administrative efficiency against the right to be heard, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside both the assessment order and the appellate rejection and remand for fresh adjudication with mandated timelines for service, reply, and reasoned order-making. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where an order is not effectively served because it was uploaded under an incorrect portal tab resulting in non-awareness of the assessee, the proper relief is to quash the impugned orders and remit the matter for fresh adjudication with explicit directions on service and timelines. Obiter - suggested timelines and undertakings by the assessee regarding appearance are pragmatic directions not forming the core legal rule. Conclusion: Both the assessment order and the appellate order were quashed; the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication treating the earlier order as a final notice, allowing the assessee a defined period to submit written reply, directing re-issue of notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and requiring a reasoned speaking order within a prescribed period thereafter. Cross-references and procedural directions The Court explicitly relies on and follows recent High Court precedents addressing portal upload irregularities; it treats those decisions as binding insofar as they resolve the legal question of deemed service by portal upload in incorrect tabs. The Court's remedial directions (remand, timelines for reply, requirement of clear notice and speaking order) flow from the ratio that adequate service and opportunity to be heard are indispensable before exercising assessment or appellate powers.