TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ali, the learned counsel that the impugned orders in Annexures-1 and 2 have never been served on the petitioner, works contractor assigned with GSTIN: 21AAUCS3303F1ZM. It is contended that the petitioner-Private Limited Company, had no knowledge about the fact of notice(s) and/or order(s) in connection with proceeding under Section 74 of the GST Act in the GST portal. As a result, there was non-participation of the petitioner in the said proceeding for determination of the tax liability. 2.1. Valiant attempt is made by Sri Biplab P.B. Bahali, learned advocate to canvass before this Court that the authority of the CT & GST Organisation should have been more cautious and careful before determining the tax liability based on third party data (Works and Management Information System) and ought to have attempted to serve notice(s) and order(s) issued under Section 74 of the GST Act by adhering to other modes prescribed under Section 169 in addition to the mode specified for service of notice/order by electronic mode. In essence what is urged by the learned counsel is that since alternative modes are provided for service of notices/orders, on perceiving non-appearance of the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lea of non-receipt of such orders can be demonstrated by placing proper evidence by the petitioner before the authority concerned. The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, being assigned with registration under the GST Act and indulged in execution of works contract, is supposed to have knowledge about uploading of such notices/orders in the web portal of the CT & GST Organisation. Therefore, the blame cannot be put on the opposite parties. 3.1. In his usual vehemence, the learned Standing Counsel drew attention to Section 107 of the GST Act to show that period of three months has been provided within which an appeal is to be filed and discretion to condone the delay is vested in the appellate authority, if the appeal is filed within a further period of thirty days. 3.2. It is argued that the GST Act embodies a comprehensive framework with specific limitation provisions tailored to expedite the determination of liability or otherwise and recovery of demand thereby. It is, therefore, the provisions in Section 107 of the GST Act provided for outer condonable period. Said statute operates as a complete code in itself, thereby delineating period of limitation for filing appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9373 of 2025 vide order dated 8th April, 2025, heavy reliance on which is placed by Sri Sunil Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel to buttress his contention that if the authority has adopted any one of the modes specified under Section 169 for communication of notice or order, the same would be sufficient compliance of statutory mandate. The question as to whether any one of the modes adhered to by the authority to comply with the statutory requirement of service of notice/order would be sufficient fell for consideration of this Court in the said case, being M/s. Rahul Spare Pvt. Ltd. (supra). This Court expressed the following view: "4. Section 146 of OGST Act, 2017 postulates that the Government on the recommendations of the Council may notify the Common Goods and Services Tax Electronic Portal to facilitate the registration, payment of tax, furnishing of returns, computation and the settlement of the integrated tax and to carry out such other functions as may be prescribed. Thus, the creation of common portal as envisaged under Section 146 of the said Act, is to facilitate not only uploading of the returns or registration, but also the payment of tax including the adju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....us provisions contained in Section 169 of the GST Act and the writ petition is not maintainable being filed beyond the condonable period provided under Section 107 of the GST Act." 5.5. There being admission that "the notice was uploaded in GST portal" in paragraph 3.3 of the writ petition as extracted hitherto the assertion as to the petitioner having not verified "the portal properly" and the fact of existence of notice/order came to its knowledge as its bank account was attached are required to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the statutory authority empowered to appraise evidence. The pleading in the writ petition also lacks such material fact to discern the date of knowledge. Such fact is necessary in view of decision in Orissa Mineral Development Company Ltd. Vrs. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Orissa (1960) 11 STC 12 (Ori)=AIR 1960 Ori 79 wherefrom it can be culled out that in order to approach this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction to circumvent alternative remedy the petitioner is required to demonstrate clearly that it has approached this Court within the period specified for the statutory remedy. It is admitted by the petitioner at paragraph 3.6 that the ....