Facts of the case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority under the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (TSGST Act). The Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner’s appeal as time-barred and declined to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the original adjudication order passed under Section 74 of the Act on 08.02.2021.

The original adjudication order was uploaded on the GST portal on the same date, i.e., 08.02.2021. However, according to the petitioner, the order was not separately communicated through any other mode of service. The petitioner contended that he became aware of the adjudication order only in the first week of February 2024, when he applied for a tax clearance certificate. Thereafter, he filed an appeal under Section 107 of the TSGST Act on 12.03.2024.

The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the ground that it had been filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 107(1), even after considering the limited power of condonation available under Section 107(4). The petitioner challenged this rejection before the High Court, contending, in substance, that the limitation period could not be computed from the date of mere uploading of the adjudication order when the order had not actually been brought to his notice through any other appropriate mode of communication.

The Revenue, on the other hand, maintained that uploading the order on the GST portal constituted valid service under Section 169(1)(d) of the TSGST Act and, therefore, the limitation period had commenced from the date of such uploading.

Issue: 

Whether mere uploading of an adjudication order on the GST portal, without communicating it through another appropriate mode under Section 169(1) of the TSGST Act, is sufficient to commence the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107.

Held That:

The Tripura High Court held that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, mere uploading of the adjudication order on the GST portal could not be treated as sufficient constructive notice to the petitioner for commencing the limitation period for filing an appeal. The Court took note of the fact that the petitioner had not been carrying on manufacturing activities since 29.04.2016 and observed that the Department ought to have taken additional steps to communicate the adjudication order through another appropriate mode, such as email, speed post or registered post, instead of relying solely on its availability on the GST portal.

Further, the Court considered the judicial precedents dealing with communication of GST orders and the consequences of merely uploading an order on the portal. It relied upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), dated 17.09.2025, and also considered other decisions referred to in the judgment, including Abitha Timber Traders, Leto, Preethi Engineering Enterprises Unit-II, Udumalpet Sarvodya Sangham and the Delhi High Court decision in Raj International. The Court also considered the contrary or distinguishable position reflected in Bambino Agro Industries, decided by the Allahabad High Court.

Applying the principles emerging from these authorities to the facts before it, the High Court accepted the petitioner’s contention that he had acquired knowledge of the adjudication order only in the first week of February 2024. Consequently, the appeal filed on 12.03.2024 was held to be within limitation when computed from the date of actual knowledge, rather than from the date on which the order had merely been uploaded on the GST portal.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the Appellate Authority’s order dated 23.12.2025, condoned the delay and restored the petitioner’s appeal for adjudication on merits. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal within three months, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and following the principles of natural justice. The Court further directed that the appellate order be communicated to the petitioner through a mode other than merely uploading it on the GST portal.

Key Takeaways: The judgment underscores that, although Section 169(1)(d) recognises making a communication available on the common portal as a mode of service, the sufficiency of portal-only communication may require examination in the context of the facts of a particular case. The ruling should therefore be understood in light of the petitioner’s circumstances and the Court’s specific findings, rather than as a blanket declaration that uploading an order on the GST portal can never constitute valid service.

Case Name: Shri Shailesh Das, Proprietor of M/s Gandacherra Bricks Industries Vs The State of Tripura dated 06.10.2026

Citation No. 2026 Taxo.online 3457