Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the adjudication orders on the primary grievance that although show cause notices and adjudication orders were uploaded on the Common GST Portal, the same were never effectively communicated or served upon them in the manner prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Acts.

The petitioners contended that they became aware of the adjudication orders only much later, and therefore could not file statutory appeals within the limitation period prescribed under Section 107. The State raised a preliminary objection that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to availability of an alternative statutory remedy of appeal, contending that uploading of the orders on the GST portal itself constituted valid service and communication, thereby triggering limitation.

Issue:

Whether mere uploading of a show cause notice or adjudication order on the Common GST Portal, without proof of actual or constructive service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST/State GST Acts, constitutes valid “communication” so as to trigger the limitation period for filing appeal under Section 107.

Held that:

The Court observed that Section 169(1) of the GST Acts exhaustively prescribes the permissible modes of service, such as direct tendering, service by registered or speed post with acknowledgment due, email, publication in a newspaper, or affixation. Uploading of documents on the Common Portal cannot be mechanically equated with these statutory modes, particularly in the absence of a clear legislative deeming fiction treating portal-upload as service.

It was held that the deeming provisions under Sections 169(2) and 169(3) cannot be enlarged to benefit the revenue by presuming service merely on upload. The Court rejected the contention that the provisions of the Information Technology Act, 2000 could be invoked to deem service complete upon electronic availability on the portal, holding that the IT Act may apply only to matters not expressly covered by the GST Acts and cannot override the specific service mechanism under Section 169.

The Court further held that in the absence of any acknowledgment or system-generated confirmation showing that the assessee had actually accessed or downloaded the notice or order, no inference can be drawn regarding the date or time of service. Entering into disputes about whether an email was received or whether a document was accessed would involve impractical and wasteful forensic enquiries and is not contemplated under the statutory scheme.

Consequently, the Court ruled that limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 would commence only from the date of effective communication, i.e., actual or constructive service strictly in terms of Section 169 of the GST Acts. Where an assessee asserts that the appeal is within limitation from the date of actual communication, a presumption would arise in their favour, and the burden would lie upon the revenue to prove earlier valid service.

The High Court held that mere uploading of a notice or adjudication order on the Common GST Portal does not, by itself, constitute valid service or “communication” for the purpose of computing limitation under Section 107 of the CGST/State GST Acts.

 Case name: M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another dated 19.12.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 Taxo.online 3398