2026 (2) TMI 461 - HC - GST

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 ... Condonation of delay - service by uploading on GST portal - limitation does not commence where order not properly served - application for condonation to be considered in light of precedent - remand for reconsideration by Appellate Authority - HELD THAT:- It is noticed that none of these grounds which have been canvassed before this Court were presented before the Appellate Authority in the application for condonation of delay that was filed before the Appellate Authority. However, since it has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has reasonable explanations to offer wherefrom it will appear that limitation for the purpose filing appeal might not have crippled the petitioner’s appeal, keeping in view the date when the petitioner first had notice of the adjudication order impugned before the Appellate Authority by reason of the same not having been properly served upon him as alleged, this court of view that the petitioner should be afforded one more opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority with all the relevant explanations and documents in support of his contention that the order was not served upon the petitioner by any other mode excepting uploading thereof on the “additional notices and orders” tab. If such application is made, within three weeks from date, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in the case of M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal [2025 (7) TMI 1866 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] and the various other judgments following the said judgement and if the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the petitioner has given cogent reasons to condone the delay or that the petitioner did not have knowledge of the order impugned in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of M/s Ram Kumar Sinhal (supra) and the various other judgments of this court following the ratio laid down therein, the Appellate Authority shall proceed to hear the petitioners appeal on merits. In such situation, the appellate order impugned dated February 20, 2025 shall be of no effect and shall be deemed to have been set aside. It is clarified that this court had not gone into the merits of the petitioners’ case in this writ petition and all points are left open to be urged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority and to be decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law. WPA stand disposed of. 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.