GST Appeal Limitation Runs from Actual Communication, Not Mere Upload of Order in Portal: Madras HC [Read Order]

Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. challenged adjudication orders passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GSTN portal and not otherwise communicated, leading to the missing of statutory timelines for appeal.

The State argued that since the impugned orders had been uploaded in the portal, the clock would start ticking from the said date. The Additional Government Pleader depended on case-laws, and submitted contended that the writ petitioner had missed the deadline.

Justice Swaminathan examined Section 169 and Section 107 of the GST Act. The judge showed a distinction between the words “service” and “communication,” holding that mere portal upload is not equivalent to communication, which requires a positive act of reaching out to the assessee through methods such as post, e-mail, or direct tender.

It was observed that while uploading on the portal is mandatory under Rule 142, it cannot, by itself, be treated as effective communication that triggers limitation. Accordingly, since the impugned orders were not communicated, limitation for appeal had not started, and the petitioner could still pursue the appellate remedy.

The bench also took judicial notice of the digital divide and practical challenges faced by small and medium taxpayers, especially after cancellation of registration when they no longer access the portal. It stated that the statutory power of choosing service modes must be exercised fairly, and suggested systemic reforms to reduce litigation.

According to the court, “Service will become communication if the authority reaches out to the assessee. This can be done by giving or tendering directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or sending by registered post or speed post. If the authority sends the order to the last known address of the assessee, it would suffice. If the assessee could not be found or he refuses to accept service, the authority need not do anything more. The expression “communication” should be understood in this sense. But mere uploading in the portal by no stretch of imagination would satisfy the requirement of communicating to the assessee. The statute obliges the authority to communicate to the assessee. There is no obligation cast on the assessee to access the portal.”

Additionally, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. S. Jaikumar submitted the serious practical difficulties faced by taxpayers under the current GST framework, where important communications, including show cause notices, adjudication orders, appellate directions, and cancellation orders, are only uploaded on the GST portal without any parallel physical intimation. This practice, it was argued, leaves many small and medium taxpayers unaware of such uploads, often causing them to miss statutory appeal deadlines and leading to avoidable litigation and writ petitions.

To address this issues, the petitioner’s counsels proposed structural reforms to the GSTN architecture, such as a prominent dashboard alert for all legal communications, mandatory OTP-based acknowledgment to mark the effective date of service under Section 169, and functional restrictions until acknowledgment is given, akin to existing return-filing controls.

For cancelled registrations, the petitioner’s counsels further urged that orders also be mandatorily served through physical post to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. These reforms, it was submitted, would reduce litigation, enhance transparency, and concur GST procedures with the objectives of ease of doing business.

However, on the detailed submissions provided by the counsels of the petitioner, the court did not issue a binding direction but recommended that the responsible authorities at the top, i.e., the GST Council, GSTN, and the Government) should seriously consider the suggestions placed before it. Also, it allowed the petitioner to file a GST appeal.

Mr. S. Jaikumar, Advocate with Mr. Nitin Chopra, Advocate appeared for the petitioners. Mr.Sureshkumar, Additional Government Pleader appeared for the respondents.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates