2026 (1) TMI 107 - HC - GST

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 ... Dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay - fault with uploading of notices under the “Additional Notices and Orders” or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the petitioners have been served with the notices in respect of the proceeding and the order impugned only by way of uploading thereof on the relevant GST portal and not by any other mode. It is the petitioners’ case that they could get to know of the notices and the order impugned only after receiving intimation through mail. In such view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioners had due knowledge of the proceedings that had been continued and concluded against them. Sankar Agarwala [2025 (11) TMI 295 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] has elaborately dealt with a similar issue. This Court has no reason to take a different view. The order impugned herein dated May 21, 2025, therefore, deserves to be set aside - Petition disposed off. 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.