The GST order was posted under a tab where orders do not go, so the appeal clock never started
Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil revived a GST appeal dismissed as time-barred, holding that Section 107(1) runs from communication of the order, not from an upload to the Additional Notices and Orders section.
A Pune manufacturer generated two e-way bills for one consignment of gas meters, because the goods travelled in two vehicles, and entered the full invoice value on each bill. That clerical duplication produced a GST demand. The order confirming the demand was then uploaded to a section of the GST portal where orders are not supposed to be placed, and the company found out about it six months later. The appellate authority dismissed its appeal as time-barred. A division bench of the Bombay High Court has revived the appeal, holding that the limitation period starts from communication of the order, and that putting it in the wrong tab is not communication.
Two lorries, two e-way bills, one invoice
Elster Metering Private Limited makes metering, flow-measurement and control equipment, much of it for gas. Under an invoice dated 23 August 2019 it supplied 6,288 gas meters worth about ₹60,65,782 to Mahanagar Gas Ltd. at Thane.
On 13 March 2024 the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax emailed the company about a mismatch between the output tax liability it had declared in GSTR-1 and the liability shown in the e-way bill data. The company answered by email on 21 and 22 March. It explained that the goods had moved in two vehicles, so two e-way bills were generated for a single supply, and the entire invoice value had been entered on both instead of being split. It attached the invoice and both e-way bills.
The department pursued the same discrepancy through every stage of the procedure: a scrutiny notice in Form ASMT-10 on 2 April, an intimation of tax payable in Form DRC-01A on 15 May, and a show-cause notice under Section 73(1) on 31 May 2024. Each time the company sent the same explanation and the same documents, the last time with its reply in Form DRC-06 on 1 July 2024.
An order that rejected documents it had just quoted
On 29 August 2024 the Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand with interest and penalty under Section 73(9). The company said no personal hearing was given, although Section 75(4) requires one. It also pointed out that the order reproduced its reply of 1 July, which stated that the supporting documents were enclosed, and then rejected the reply in a single line because supporting documents had not been submitted.
The order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" section of the company's GST portal account, not under "View Notices and Orders". The company said it did not learn of the order until February 2025. It appealed on 25 February 2025 with an application to condone the delay. On 24 April 2025 the Joint Commissioner, as appellate authority, dismissed the appeal as time-barred without considering the merits.
The appellate authority reasoned that the order had been properly served on the portal, and that because the company filed returns and paid tax on the same portal it was obviously familiar with how the portal worked.
Communication is what counts
The department argued that the company should have gone to the GST Appellate Tribunal. The Bench entertained the petition anyway, applying the principles in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. on when an alternative remedy does not bar a writ.
Section 107(1) of the CGST and MGST Acts allows three months for an appeal, counted from the date the decision is “communicated to such person”. The Bench relied on Harikisan v. State of Maharashtra, where the Supreme Court held that communication means giving the affected person enough knowledge to make an effective representation. It also relied on Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh and M.M. Rubber and Co., which hold that actual or constructive knowledge is essential before limitation can begin to run against a person.
The facts matched the Court's earlier decision in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. In that case an order uploaded to the additional notices section, and not emailed, was held not to have been brought to the assessee's notice, and no fault could be attributed to the assessee for missing it. Here too the order had been placed in a tab where orders were not required to be placed, and where a registered person would not look for them.
The Bench said the appellate authority had confused two different things. Filing returns regularly on a portal does not give a person knowledge of an order placed under a tab where orders are not meant to appear. The appellate order also relied on service in the abstract, when Section 107(1) asks about communication. In addition, it gave no reason for finding the explanation in the condonation application insufficient. The cause had been stated in the application, and the order did not discuss it.
On jurisdiction, the Bench cited Tecnimont Private Limited v. State of Punjab: an appellate authority may lack power to extend limitation, but that does not limit what a High Court can do under Article 226.
Order
The petition was allowed under its alternative prayer. The appellate order of 24 April 2025 was quashed, the delay in filing the appeal of 25 February 2025 was condoned, and the appellate authority was directed to restore the appeal and decide it on merits by a reasoned order after giving the company a personal hearing. The company was directed to appear before the appellate authority at 11 a.m. on 21 October 2026, and the authority was asked to decide the appeal quickly.
The Bench expressly declined to express any view on the adjudication order itself, including the complaints about the missing hearing and the one-line rejection, because those are for the appeal. Mr Aditya Surte appeared for the company. Ms Shruti D. Vyas, Additional Government Pleader, appeared for the State, and Mr Karan Adik for the Commissioner of State Tax.