1. Challenge to dismissal of appeal under Section 107 CGST Act as barred by limitation. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 20331
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL,
VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
M/S MANOJ SPARES AND SERVICE CENTER – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 18521 / 2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sharad Kothari, Kalpit Shishodiya, Chirag Soni
For the Respondents: Mahaveer Bishnoi, Harshvardhan Singh, Rajvendra Saraswat, Rishabh Dadhich, Jitesh Kumar Suthar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sharad Kothari, Kalpit Shishodiya, Chirag Soni
For the Respondents: Mahaveer Bishnoi, Harshvardhan Singh, Rajvendra Saraswat, Rishabh Dadhich, Jitesh Kumar Suthar
Mere uploading of an order on the GST common portal does not constitute "communication" under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. The limitation period for filing an appeal begins only upon the actual or constructive communication of the order to the aggrieved party.
Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 107(1) and Section 169 - Communication of Order - Limitation for filing appeal - The period of three months for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) commences from the date the decision or order is communicated to the person aggrieved - Communication must be effective and meaningful to enable the aggrieved party to exercise their legal remedy - Mere uploading of an order on the common portal does not amount to "communication" for the purpose of triggering the limitation period under Section 107(1) (Paras 7, 13, 18, 21).
(B) Service of Notice - Section 169 - While Section 169 provides various methods of service, including making a decision available on the common portal, the mandatory nature of communication under Section 107(1) requires that the party affected must have actual or constructive knowledge to start the limitation clock (Paras 15, 18, 20).
(C) Limitation Act - Section 5 - Where a specific statutory period is provided for filing an appeal under the Act of 2017, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded, necessitating strict compliance with the communication requirements by the Adjudicating Authority (Para 18).
Facts of the case:
A taxable person's registration was cancelled due to non-filing of returns. The order was uploaded on the common portal. Upon discovering the cancellation, the person filed all pending returns and preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, holding that the limitation period had expired based on the date of the order, resulting in a calculated delay of 8 months and 23 days.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Adjudicating Authority failed to communicate the order to the aggrieved person as mandated by Section 107(1). Since the order was only uploaded on the portal and not effectively communicated, the limitation period for filing the appeal had not yet commenced.
Issues: Whether the uploading of an order on the GST common portal constitutes sufficient "communication" under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 to trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the purpose of communication under Section 107(1) is to provide a remedial opportunity to the aggrieved party. Because the limitation period is strict and Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded, the authority must strictly follow the prescribed modes of communication. Uploading an order on the portal alone does not constitute communication under Section 107(1); thus, the limitation period only begins when the order is actually or constructively communicated to the person affected.
Result: Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; delay condoned; matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for hearing and deciding the appeal on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- tax law
-
administrative law
-
natural justice
- right to be heard (Para 16)
-
natural justice
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: order not communicated; limitation runs from communication. Revenue: uploading on portal amounts to service. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Communication under Section 107(1) is mandatory; uploading on portal does not constitute valid communication. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Limitation for appeal under Section 107(1) CGST Act runs from date of mandatory communication, not mere upload. (Para 6 , 13 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
5. Writ allowed; impugned order set aside; matter remanded to Appellate Authority for deciding appeal on merits. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 )
6. What is the starting point of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017?
The limitation of three months starts from the date the order or decision is communicated to the person aggrieved, not from the date of the order. (Para 6 , 7 , 13 , 19 )
7. Does uploading an order on the common GST portal constitute valid communication under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act?
No, mere uploading on the portal does not amount to the communication required under Section 107(1), which mandates service as per Section 169. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
8. What is the scope of an appellate authority's power to condone delay in filing an appeal under the CGST Act?
The appellate authority can condone a delay of up to one month beyond the three-month period; no further extension is permitted. (Para 13 , 17 , 18 )
9. Is the Limitation Act, 1963, applicable to appeals filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act?
No, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded, and the strict limitation periods under Section 107 cannot be extended further. (Para 18 )
10. What is the effect of an order passed under the CGST Act if it is not communicated to the aggrieved person in the manner prescribed?
The period of limitation to challenge the order does not commence until the order is properly communicated to the aggrieved person. (Para 13 , 19 , 21 )
DIVISION BENCH
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ:
1. Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Order-in-Appeal dated 12.05.2026, by which petitioner's appeal preferred under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2017'), has been dismissed holding that the appeal is barred by limitation and delay in filing the appeal cannot be condoned.
2. The aforesaid challenge has been made on the following factual backdrop:
(i) The petitioner commenced the business of automobile spare parts and service centre and was registered under the GST regime bearing registration number GSTIN 08AFBPG7113A1Z6. On 06.11.2024, a show cause notice in Form GST REG-17/31 was issued by respondent No.3, proposing cancellation of petitioner's GST registration for non-filing of return for a continuous period of six months.
(ii) On 26.03.2025, respondent No.3 passed the Order-in-Original in Form GST REG-19, cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner with retrospective effect from 06.11.2024 on account of non-filing of returns. On 10/14.04.2026, upon coming to know about cancellation of its registration, the petitioner rushed to his accountant and thereafter filed all pending GST returns pertaining to the disputed period and discharged the applicable tax liability and other dues, thereby curing the underlying default.
(iii) Thereafter, on 19.04.2026, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 in Form GST APL-01 along with the facts explaining the delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.05.2026, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation holding that the date of effective order of cancellation is 06.11.2024 and the appeal challenging the order dated 26.03.2025 has been preferred on 19.04.2026 i.e. after a delay of 8 months and 23 days, which is beyond the period of limitation of 90 days, as prescribed under Section 107(1) the Act of 2017. As such, against the order dated 12.05.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, the instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
3. Mr. Sharad Kothari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Order-in-Original was required to be communicated to the petitioner by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017. The period of three months provided in Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 would start running from the date of communication of the order, or decision to the petitioner and since the order was never communicated, as mandated under Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017, therefore, as soon as the petitioner came to know about the order, he immediately preferred an appeal on 19.04.2026. He, therefore, submits that the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay and lashes and as such, the impugned order dated 12.05.2026 is liable to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit that the order was uploaded on the GST portal and therefore, the petitioner deemed to have the knowledge about passing of the order. As such, uploading of order on the common portal, as required under Section 169 of the Act of 2017, itself is sufficient compliance and therefore, the appeal has rightly been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. He, therefore, submits that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.
6. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice that Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 as under:
"107.
