GST appeal delay condoned due to portal confusion; Sec 107 matter remanded on deposit to Legal Services Committee

HC set aside the dismissal of the petitioner's GST appeal as time-barred, holding that the delay was attributable to confusion on the GST portal, where the adjudication order was uploaded under the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab rather than the main "View Notices and Orders" tab. Relying on earlier coordinate bench decisions that had condoned similar delays, HC directed that the petitioners receive identical treatment. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal on merits, subject to the petitioners depositing Rs. 15,000 with the HC Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation was justified when the adjudication order was uploaded on the GST portal under the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab and the petitioners claimed lack of knowledge of such order.

1.2 Whether, in the circumstances of portal-related notice difficulties and non-functionality of the Appellate Tribunal, the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned and the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for decision on merits, and if so, on what terms.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Justification of rejection of appeal as time-barred in light of uploading of order under "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab

Interpretation and reasoning

2.1 The Court noted that at the relevant time, the GST portal had multiple tabs, including "View Notices and Orders" and "View Additional Notices and Orders". It held that a registered tax payer cannot reasonably be expected to access the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab specifically for checking main orders or orders disposing of main proceedings.

2.2 The Court took note of prior decisions of Co-ordinate Benches which had encountered similar difficulties arising from orders and notices being uploaded under "Additional Notices and Orders", including the decision where, despite the assessee's participation in pre-show cause proceedings, delay in preferring appeal occurred because the adjudication order was unnoticed in that tab.

2.3 Referring to such precedent, the Court recognized that while an assessee's explanation of lack of knowledge due to the uploading pattern on the portal might not be entirely satisfactory, the portal's structure had objectively created a recurring practical difficulty for taxpayers in becoming aware of adjudication orders within the statutory limitation period.

Conclusion

2.4 The Court implicitly held that, in the given portal configuration and in the light of similar situations previously recognized by Co-ordinate Benches, the strict rejection of the appeal on limitation grounds by the Appellate Authority ought not to stand, and the petitioners should receive similar treatment as in the earlier decision where delay was condoned and appeal directed to be heard on merits.

Issue 2: Condonation of delay and remand to Appellate Authority in view of portal difficulties and non-functioning Tribunal

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.5 The Court referred to Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017, which provides for an appeal to the Appellate Authority against an adjudication order. It also noted that the Tribunal, which is the forum for further appeal against orders under Section 107, had not yet become functional, thereby foreclosing the ordinary statutory multi-tier remedy.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.6 The Court adopted the reasoning of a Co-ordinate Bench that, where the statutory multi-tier adjudicatory process exists but the Tribunal is not constituted, a litigant who is otherwise deprived of an effective statutory appeal remedy should not be unduly prejudiced by procedural lapses, particularly when the record is available on the common portal and the delay is linked to the portal's notice architecture.

2.7 The Court followed the approach in the earlier decision where, notwithstanding reservations about the sufficiency of the explanation for delay, the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a decision on merits, with delay condoned subject to payment of costs to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee and consequential demand being quashed.

2.8 Applying that rationale to the present facts, which the Court found to be similar in nature, it held that the petitioners should be "similarly treated" and afforded an opportunity to have their appeal decided on merits, with appropriate conditions imposed to balance equities and discourage negligence.

Conclusions

2.9 The Court remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to take a fresh decision on merits, directing that the delay in filing the appeal be condoned subject to the petitioners paying a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the Calcutta High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

2.10 The Court directed that, upon proof of such payment being produced before the Appellate Authority within the stipulated time, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to hear the appeal on merits, and the order rejecting the appeal on limitation shall "have no effect".

---