Condonation of delay after service via GST portal remanded for fresh Appellate Authority consideration; appellate order may be set aside

Condonation of delay was addressed where service occurred only by uploading orders on the GST portal; the court reasoned that limitation may not commence if the order was not properly served and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider an application for condonation with full explanations and documents. The Appellate Authority is directed to apply the Division Bench ratio in M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal and related decisions; if satisfied that cogent reasons exist or that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the order, it shall condone the delay and hear the appeal on merits, rendering the impugned appellate order ineffective. Merits are left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Appellate Authority's dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation can be faulted and whether the petitioner is entitled to condonation of delay; (ii) Whether an adjudication order uploaded only under the "additional notices and orders" tab on the GST portal amounts to effective service such that limitation begins to run.

Issue (i): Whether the Appellate Authority's order dismissing the appeal for delay should be set aside and the petitioner afforded an opportunity to seek condonation of delay.

Analysis: The Court examined the materials concerning the petitioner's lack of notice of the adjudication order, the petitioner's restoration of GST registration following court direction, and the fact that the grounds now urged before the High Court were not presented to the Appellate Authority earlier. The Court noted prevailing precedent of the Division Bench in M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal and related decisions concerning service by portal upload. Recognising that the Appellate Authority has not been given the opportunity to consider cogent reasons or supporting documents, the Court considered proportional relief to enable a fresh application for condonation to be placed before the Appellate Authority for adjudication in light of authoritative precedent.

Conclusion: The petitioner is granted leave to file an application before the Appellate Authority within three weeks; if the Appellate Authority, applying the Division Bench precedent and subsequent decisions, is satisfied that cogent reasons exist to condone the delay or that the petitioner lacked knowledge of the order, it shall condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeal on merits. The Appellate Authority's order dated February 20, 2025 shall be of no effect and deemed set aside in such event.

Issue (ii): Whether uploading the adjudication order solely under the "additional notices and orders" tab on the GST portal constitutes effective service and starts limitation.

Analysis: The Court referred to the Division Bench decision in M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal and subsequent authorities addressing sufficiency of service by mere upload on the GST portal. The Court observed that the petitioner remained unaware of the adjudication order as it was uploaded under the specified tab, and emphasised that determination of whether such uploading amounted to valid service requires application of the cited precedent and factual assessment by the Appellate Authority, which has not yet been undertaken.

Conclusion: The question whether portal uploading under the "additional notices and orders" tab constitutes effective service is left for the Appellate Authority to decide in accordance with the Division Bench precedent; such determination may warrant condonation of delay if the petitioner lacked knowledge of the order.

Final Conclusion: The High Court did not decide the merits of the appeal but afforded the petitioner a further procedural opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority with full explanations and supporting documents; the Appellate Authority is directed to reconsider any application for condonation of delay in the light of controlling Division Bench precedent and, if satisfied, to hear the appeal on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a party demonstrates absence of knowledge of an adjudication order that was uploaded only in a non-prominent portal location, the competent authority must consider whether such uploading constituted effective service and whether limitation should be condoned in light of binding Division Bench precedent before dismissing an appeal as time-barred.

---