TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1.1 Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order under Section 107 and the order under Section 74 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 was maintainable despite delay in approaching the Court and non-functioning of the appellate Tribunal.
1.2 Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal under Section 107 as barred by limitation without determining the actual date of uploading/communication of the order passed under Section 74 on the GST portal.
1.3 What directions were required regarding (i) determination of the date of uploading of the Section 74 order, (ii) the plea that only a summary order and not the detailed order was uploaded/supplied, and (iii) condonation of delay if the order was uploaded before the date asserted by the petitioners.
1.4 What was the effect of the subsequent order dated January 31, 2025 under Section 74 and the rectification order dated November 14, 2025 nullifying the demand raised thereby.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
2.1 Maintainability of the writ petition despite delay and non-functioning of Tribunal
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioners had explained the delay in paragraph 18 of the writ petition and that such explanation appeared sufficient. It further noted that the appellate Tribunal, before which an appeal could have been preferred against the impugned appellate order, was not functional. In such circumstances, if the writ petition was not entertained, the petitioners would be left without an effective remedy.
Conclusions: The writ petition was held entertainable and was taken up on merits despite the delay.
2.2 Legality of dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation without determining actual date of uploading/communication
Legal framework (as discussed): The appeal had been filed under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017 against an order under Section 74. The appellate authority treated the appeal as time-barred, primarily on the basis that once a communication is issued through the GST portal, it appears at the recipient's end "in no time."
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the appellate order and observed that:
* The appellate authority disbelieved the petitioners' assertion that the order dated March 10, 2022 was received (via portal) on August 25, 2022 only on the ground that no supporting document was produced.
* The appellate authority relied on a general proposition that once a notice/order is issued through the GST portal, it will appear to the recipient in "no time", and from this drew an inference adverse to the petitioners.
* The order did not disclose that any specific inquiry had been undertaken by the appellate authority to ascertain the actual date on which the order under Section 74 was uploaded on the portal.
* The Court emphasized that, where the issue is the date of uploading of an order on the portal, it is "nigh impossible" for a taxpayer to prove that date, since that information is within the special knowledge of the authority that uploads the order.
* Therefore, to reject the appeal on limitation solely on a general observation about "real time" reflection, without verifying when the order was actually uploaded, was unsustainable.
Conclusions: The Court held that the appellate authority failed to test the veracity of the petitioners' contention regarding the date of uploading and had reached its conclusion without material-based inquiry. On this ground alone, the appellate order dated May 23, 2023 was set aside.
2.3 Directions on remand: ascertainment of upload date, consideration of summary/detailed order, and possible condonation of delay
Interpretation and reasoning: In remanding the matter, the Court:
* Directed that the appellate authority must first determine whether the order under Section 74, impugned before it, was uploaded on the GST portal on August 25, 2022 or on an earlier date.
* Clarified that, if it is found that the order was uploaded on August 25, 2022, the appeal filed on August 28, 2022 would fall within the period of limitation.
* Noted the petitioners' submission that only the "summary order" was uploaded on August 25, 2022 and that the detailed order had never been supplied to them.
* Observed that the petitioners would be at liberty to press this contention before the appellate authority, which in turn must consider it "in due earnest" and deal with it in accordance with law.
* Further clarified that if the appellate authority finds that the order was uploaded before August 25, 2022, it would still be open to that authority to take an informed decision on whether to condone the delay in filing the appeal, in accordance with law.
Conclusions: The appellate authority was directed:
* To conduct a factual inquiry into the actual date of uploading of the Section 74 order on the GST portal.
* To treat the appeal as within time if the upload date is found to be August 25, 2022.
* To duly consider the plea that only a summary order was uploaded and that the detailed order was not supplied.
* If the upload date is earlier than August 25, 2022, to decide afresh, in accordance with law, whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
2.4 Effect of subsequent Section 74 order dated January 31, 2025 and rectification order dated November 14, 2025
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded the submission of the State that:
* The subsequent order dated January 31, 2025, passed under Section 74, had been "inadvertently issued".
* The issuing authority realized the error and thereafter issued a rectification order dated November 14, 2025, which nullified the demand raised by the order dated January 31, 2025.
* A copy of the rectification order was produced before the Court and taken on record.
Conclusions: In view of the rectification order nullifying the demand raised by the order dated January 31, 2025, no further adjudication on that order was required. The writ petition was disposed of on the basis of the directions issued regarding the appellate order, without any subsisting demand under the subsequent Section 74 order.
TaxTMI 
