Effective communication of adjudication orders is essential for initiating limitation under GST laws, and electronic service via the Common Portal alone does not satisfy this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Pranjal Shukla along with Sri Gauransh Mishra and Sri Parth Goswami, Ms. Pooja Talwar, Sri Vedant Agrawal and Sri Rishi Raj Kapoor, Sri Anup Shukla holding brief of Sri Devansh Mishra, Ms. Akashi Agarwal and Sri Vishwaraj Singh on behalf of petitioners; Sri Anoop Trivedi learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra and Sri Ankur Agarwal learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh, Sri S.P. Singh learned ASGI assisted by Sri Gopal Verma for the Union of India and the GSTN, and Sri Gaurav Mahajan and Sri Amit Mahajan for the central revenue authorities. Also, we have taken assistance of Sri Praveen Kumar, as amicus curiae.

2. Present batch of petitions has been filed by different petitioners assailing individual Adjudication Orders passed against them, under the UPGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Act’) and the CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Central Act’). At the outset, strong preliminary objection has been raised by the revenue as to maintainability of these petitions. It has been submitted that the Adjudication Orders are appealable. Therefore, the present petitions may not be entertained, and the individual petitioners be relegated to the forum of alternative remedy. Learned counsel for petitioners have met the preliminary objection on the strength of fact assertion that neither the Show Cause Notice nor the Order in Original/Adjudication Order was served on the petitioners, at the relevant time. Only on recoveries being initiated or other consequential steps being taken by the revenue authorities, they acquired knowledge about the Adjudication Orders passed and/or recoveries pressed thereunder. By that time, the hard period of limitation prescribed under Section 107 (1) read with (4) of the State/Central Act, namely, 120 days (including only 30 days for condonation of delay), expired. In face of the law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise vs Hongo India Pvt. Ltd.; (2009) 5 SCC 791 and Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited; (2020) 19 SCC 681, the petitioners have been left remediless under the enacted law. Therefore, they have been constrained to approach this Court under its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

3. In all cases, Adjudication Orders and the Show Cause Notices preceding those orders and the impugned orders are described to have been served on the individual petitioners by the revenue authorities - by uploading and thus making them available on the Common Portal, designed and managed by GSTN, a corporation of Union of India. Details of the Adjudication Orders involved in this batch, together with dates are tabluated below:

4. In such facts, a question has arisen-if the orders impugned in the individual writ petitions have been ‘communicated’ to the individual petitioners, within the meaning of that word used in Section 107 of the State/Central Act? Unless the orders to be appealed are effectively ‘communicated’ to the person aggrieved (by that order), who may then seek an appeal remedy thereagainst, the period of limitation of three months to file such appeal, may not start running.

5. The word ‘communicated’ is not defined under the State/Central Act. However, learned counsel appearing for either party have referred to Section 169 of those Acts as also Sections 4, 12 and 13 of the Information Technology Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IT Act’).

6. Seen in that light, a legal issue has arisen - if a Show Cause Notice or other notice or order pa