“...if the respondent-department can send attachment order through e-mail, why should it not send the assessment orders through the email”: Rajasthan HC to GST Dept [Read Order]
The High Court quashed this rejection, ruling that limitation must begin from actual communication to the taxpayer and not merely from portal upload in such circumstances.
Assessment - order - Email - Taxscan
Assessment - order - Email - Taxscan
In a sharp observation directed at the Goods and Services Tax ( GST ) authorities, the Rajasthan High Court has questioned why assessment orders are not being communicated through email when attachment orders can be. The remark came while allowing the writ petition of a GST Taxpayer, which challenged the dismissal of its appeal as time-barred.
The petitioner contended that her GST registration was initially filed by a consultant who used his own email ID and mobile number. When disputes arose due to irregular filing of returns, he refused to provide the login credentials. On 05 February 2024, she requested the Commercial Taxes Officer, Churu, to update her mobile number and email. However, the change was made only on 17 March 2025.
Complete Ready to Use PDFs of 200+ Agreements Click here
Mahaveer Bishnoi, Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents submitted that since the order was uploaded on the common portal on 25.07.2024, such date is the date of communication. He further submitted that the alleged dispute between the petitioner and her tax consultant cannot be taken as a refuge to seek condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
Despite a request in February 2024 to change credentials, the department updated the contact details only in March 2025, long after the assessment order of July 2024 was uploaded on the GST portal.
By the time the petitioner discovered the order through a subsequent bank attachment in March 2025, the 90-day limitation under Section 107 had already been treated as lapsed by the Appellate Authority.
Know the complete aspects of tax implications of succession, Click here
The Division Bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sangeeta Sharma noted that the petitioner had been denied effective communication of the assessment order due to a dispute with her consultant, who had registered the business using his own email and mobile number.
Significantly, the Court issued a parting remark on communication practices of the department. It observed: “If the respondent-department can send attachment orders through e-mail, why should it not send the assessment orders through the email so as to ward off any sort of communication gap or confusion about the date of communication?”
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
