GST notices served only via portal "Additional Notices and Orders"; delayed taxpayer knowledge leads to appeal delay dismissal set aside.

Where GST notices and the impugned adjudication order were served only by uploading on the GST portal under "Additional Notices and Orders", without any other mode of service, the HC held that mere portal uploading did not establish due knowledge of the proceedings when the taxpayer became aware only upon later email intimation. Applying the principle that effective service requires communication reasonably enabling the party to know and respond, the HC found the appellate dismissal on delay unsustainable. The impugned order dated 21 May 2025 was set aside, and the petition was disposed of.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether dismissal of the statutory appeal solely on the ground of delay was sustainable when the notices and the adjudication order were served only through uploading on the GST portal under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, and the taxpayer asserted lack of due knowledge until later email intimation.

(ii) What consequential relief and directions were warranted upon finding that the taxpayer lacked due knowledge of the proceedings concluded against it, including restoration of the appeal and the scope of contentions to be considered on merits by the appellate authority.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Sustainability of dismissal of appeal for delay where service was only by portal uploading and taxpayer claimed lack of due knowledge

Legal framework (as discussed in the judgment): The Court noted that the impugned appellate order was passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 and that the underlying adjudication order was under Section 73 of the 2017 GST enactments. The Court proceeded on the admitted position regarding the mode of service adopted in the case.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated it as undisputed that the relevant notices in the adjudication proceeding and the adjudication order were served only by uploading on the GST portal and not by any other mode. The taxpayer's case, accepted for the purpose of deciding the writ petition, was that it became aware of the notices and the adjudication order only upon receiving an email reminder about outstanding demand. On that basis, the Court concluded that it could not be said the taxpayer had "due knowledge" of the proceedings that were continued and concluded against it. The Court applied the approach taken in a coordinate bench decision dealing with a similar factual situation and stated it had no reason to take a different view.

Conclusion: The Court held that, in the circumstances, the appellate authority's dismissal of the appeal on delay could not be sustained; accordingly, the appellate order deserved to be set aside.

Issue (ii): Appropriate relief-restoration of appeal and directions on consideration of merits

Interpretation and reasoning: Having found that the taxpayer lacked due knowledge of the proceedings, the Court determined that the proper course was to restore the statutory appeal for a fresh decision on merits rather than allow the dismissal for delay to stand. The Court further addressed the taxpayer's request that a subsequent development in its own case-where a similar demand for another financial year was dropped upon considering the taxpayer's reply-be considered by the appellate authority. The Court did not itself adjudicate the merits of the demand but held that the taxpayer should be permitted to raise all points before the appellate authority, including reliance on the stated dropping of a similar demand, and that the appellate authority must decide in accordance with law after considering those facts.

Conclusion: The Court set aside the appellate order and restored the appeal to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on merits, with liberty to the taxpayer to raise all points (including the fact of dropping of a similar demand in its own case) and a direction that the appellate authority consider such aspects while deciding the appeal in accordance with law.

---