GST appeal limitation runs from effective communication of the order, and Revenue must rebut the assessee's communication claim.

Under the GST regime, limitation for filing appeal is governed by the effective date of communication of the impugned order, and where the assessee asserts a later actual communication date, the Revenue must rebut that claim with cogent material. The writ petitions were entertained despite the statutory appellate remedy because the appellate orders had rejected the appeals only on limitation without examining the merits. Orders dismissing the appeals as time barred were therefore set aside and the matters remitted for fresh decision in accordance with the binding limitation and communication principle.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of statutory appellate remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; (ii) whether the appellate orders dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay and laches could be sustained when the assessee's case was that the limitation period had to be computed from the date of actual communication of the orders.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of statutory appellate remedy under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The availability of a statutory remedy under Sections 112 and 113 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was raised as a preliminary objection. The petitions, however, challenged appellate orders that had dismissed the appeals only on limitation without examining the controversy on merits. The Court proceeded to decide the matters in the light of binding precedent on limitation and communication of orders under the GST regime.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were entertained and decided on merits; the preliminary objection did not prevent adjudication.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate orders dismissing the appeals solely on the ground of delay and laches could be sustained when the assessee's case was that the limitation period had to be computed from the date of actual communication of the orders.

Analysis: The Court applied the principle that, where an assessee asserts the actual date of communication of an order, a presumption may arise in the assessee's favour and the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut it with cogent material. The Court followed the Division Bench decision holding that effective communication governs the commencement of limitation and that the Revenue must establish an earlier communication if it disputes the assessee's declaration. As the appellate authorities did not apply this binding law and had not given independent findings on the issue, the orders could not stand.

Conclusion: The appellate orders dismissing the appeals as time barred were unsustainable and were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment grants relief to the petitioners by setting aside the impugned appellate orders and remitting the matters to the appellate authorities for fresh decision in accordance with law and the binding precedent on communication and limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: For GST appeals, limitation runs from the effective date of communication of the impugned order, and where the assessee pleads actual communication, the Revenue must rebut that assertion with cogent evidence; appellate orders ignoring this rule are liable to be set aside and remanded.

---