GST appeal limitation under section 107(1): Rajasthan High Court holds that uploading an order on the portal is not communication

Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) gives a person aggrieved by an adjudication order three months to appeal, counted from the date on which the order “is communicated to such person”. Section 107(4) lets the Appellate Authority condone a further one month, and no more. In Ridhi Sidhi Trading Company v. State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan High Court has held that an order which was only uploaded on the GST portal had not been communicated within the meaning of section 107(1), so the three months had not begun to run. The following covers the facts, the reasoning, and what the ruling does and does not settle.

The facts

The show cause notice of 29 April 2024, issued over a return the petitioner had not filed, was only uploaded on the portal. So was the assessment order of 17 May 2024, which raised a demand of ₹4,42,921 including interest, read with section 20 of the Integrated Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

On 4 October 2024 the petitioner filed the pending GSTR-3B and paid the tax with interest and late fee. It appealed under section 107 on 24 March 2025. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 22 May 2026: counted from the order, the appeal was due by 17 August 2024, and it was beyond even the one month that section 107(4) allows to be condoned.

The two positions

The petitioner argued that the order was never communicated as section 107(1) requires, so limitation had not started, and that it appealed as soon as it came to know of the order.

The Revenue argued that the order was uploaded on the common portal, that the petitioner was therefore deemed to know of it, and that the upload was sufficient compliance.

Why the Court read “communicated” strictly

“Communication” is not defined in the Act or the rules, so the Court construed it in context, relying on Supreme Court decisions on the meaning of the word. Two strands decided the case.

The first is purpose. Following CCE, Madras v. M.M. Rubber and Co., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 471, where a limitation period exists to protect the person affected by giving a remedy, it runs from communication of the order, not from the date it was made. D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India, (2003) 6 SCC 186, puts it as communication or knowledge, actual or constructive. Section 107(1) is that kind of provision: the communication exists to enable an appeal.

The second is the rigid window. The Appellate Authority can condone only one month beyond the three, and section 5 of the Limitation Act is wholly excluded, as the Supreme Court held in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur, (2008) 3 SCC 70. Because a late taxpayer has no other door, the Court held that the adjudicating authority was obliged to comply strictly with section 107(1) read with section 169(1). On the facts, it said:

“only the order has been uploaded on the GST Portal, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue, which, in our considered opinion, would not amount to the communication of order in terms of Section 107(1) of the Act of 2017.” (para 18)

Section 169 and the order of the modes

Section 169(1) lists the methods of serving a decision or order: tendering it directly, registered or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, e-mail to the registered address, making it available on the common portal, newspaper publication, and affixing. Section 169(2) deems service on the date the document is tendered, published or affixed.

As reported with the judgment, the Court read the first three modes (direct tender, post, e-mail) as alternatives, with the later modes to be followed if those are not applicable (para 15). It relied on Saral Wire Craft (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, (2015) 14 SCC 523, where the Supreme Court said every effort must be made “to meaningfully and realistically serve the affected party”, so that the party can act on the order and not merely know of it. It also held that rules, being creatures of the statute, cannot confine service to electronic modes and so circumscribe what the statute provides (paras 20 and 21).

The outcome

The order of 22 May 2026 was set aside. Recording that the petitioner deposited the dues on 4 October 2024 and appealed on 24 March 2025 after coming to know of the order, the Court condoned the delay and remanded the appeal to the Appellate Authority to be decided on merits. It expressly said nothing on the merits of the demand (para 24).

What it settles, and what it does not

The ruling helps a taxpayer whose appeal has been thrown out as time-barred where the only service was an upload, with no tender, post or e-mail. It does not license ignoring the portal.

Three limits are worth keeping in view:

• The statute names the portal. Making a document available on the common portal is one of the modes listed in section 169(1), and that was the Revenue’s case here. The Court’s answer rests on the order of those modes and on the purpose of section 107(1), on facts where nothing but an upload had happened. A case where the order was also e-mailed to the registered address would fall outside that reasoning.
• One High Court. This is a decision of the Rajasthan High Court. Outside Rajasthan, including before authorities in Punjab, it is persuasive and can be cited, but it does not bind.
• The record matters. The Court acted on the petitioner’s account that it paid the dues and appealed once it learnt of the order. A taxpayer relying on the ruling needs a documented date of actual knowledge: when the order was first downloaded, a recovery notice, a bank attachment, or a letter from the officer.

For ongoing compliance, the safer course remains to count the three months from the date of upload, to check the portal’s notices and orders section regularly, and to keep the registered e-mail address current, since e-mail is one of the modes the Court treated as primary. Where an appeal has already been rejected as time-barred and the order was only uploaded, the ruling supports a writ petition, with the dates of upload, actual knowledge, payment and appeal set out precisely.

This article is intended for educational purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice. It is based on the law as understood on the date of publication; laws and regulations are subject to change, and it may not reflect later developments. Readers are advised to consult a qualified tax professional on their specific situation before taking any action based on it. CA. Mohit Gaba takes no responsibility for any action taken or decision made on the basis of this article.