Facts of the case:

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019 solely on the ground of limitation. The show cause notice had been issued on 20.12.2023, while the adjudication order under Section 73(9) was digitally signed by the Proper Officer on 30.04.2024, which was the last date available under the extension notifications issued under Section 168A of the Act. However, the order along with Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded on the GST portal only on 01.05.2024. Although the petitioner had already preferred and partly succeeded in the statutory appeal, the writ petition was confined to the legal question whether an order uploaded after the expiry of limitation could be regarded as having been validly issued within the prescribed period.

Issue:

Whether an adjudication order under Section 73(9), digitally signed within the prescribed limitation period but uploaded on the GST portal after expiry of the limitation period, is barred by limitation under Section 73(10) of the CGST/WBGST Act?

Held That:

The Court observed that the GST Act consciously distinguishes between the expressions “issue” and “service.” While Sections 73(9) and 73(10) require the Proper Officer to issue the adjudication order within the limitation period, Section 169 separately prescribes the various modes for service of orders and notices, including uploading them on the common portal.

The Court held that issuance of an order is completed when the Proper Officer authenticates the order through digital signature and formally releases it from his control. Uploading the order in Form GST DRC-07 is only one of the prescribed modes of service and does not determine the date of issuance. The legislature, having consciously used different expressions in different provisions, intended issuance and service to operate independently. Accordingly, where the order was digitally signed and issued on 30.04.2024, the subsequent uploading of the order on 01.05.2024 did not render it barred by limitation.

The Court further held that the Information Technology Act is incorporated only for authentication of electronic records under Rule 26 and not for determining service under Section 169. The date of service remains relevant only for computing the limitation for filing an appeal and not for determining whether the adjudication order was issued within time.

Case Name: M.M. Motors & Anr. Versus The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors. dated 13.07.2026

To read the complete judgement 2026 Taxo.online 1935