The Calcutta High Court has ruled on the validity of a GST adjudication order in the case of M.M. Motors & Anr. vs The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors. The petitioner challenged the order issued under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act for the fiscal year 2018-19. Although the order was digitally signed on 30 April 2024, it was uploaded to the GST portal on 1 May 2024, after the expiration of the extended limitation period. The petitioner argued that this delay in service rendered the order invalid.
Read more: Haryana AAAR - Business support services performed in India for a foreign company, while facilitating services to an Indian client, qualify as intermediary services and not export of services [Order attached]
The department countered that the order was valid as it was digitally signed within the limitation period, and the subsequent uploading was merely a service method under Section 169, not a condition for its validity. The court examined whether the limitation under Section 73(10) pertains to the issuance of the order or its service.
The court concluded that the GST law distinguishes between "issue" and "service." Under Section 73, an order is issued once it is authenticated and digitally signed by the competent authority within the prescribed time. Uploading it on the GST portal is a statutory method of service but does not affect the issuance date. The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the adjudication order was validly issued within the limitation period and that its later upload did not invalidate it or the jurisdiction of the proper officer.
Order Date -13 July 2026
Parties: M.M. Motors & Anr. Vs The Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors.
Facts -
- Petitioner, M.M. Motors & Anr. challenged the GST adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act for FY 2018-19, arguing that although the order was digitally signed on 30 April 2024, it was uploaded on the GST portal only on 1 May 2024, after the extended limitation period.
- The petitioners contended that since the order was not served within the prescribed time, it was barred by limitation and the proper officer lacked jurisdiction to enforce it.
- The department argued that the order had already been digitally signed on the last permissible date and that uploading it later was merely a mode of service under Section 169, not a condition for its validity.
- The dispute before the Calcutta High Court was whether the limitation under Section 73(10) applies to the issuance of the order or to its service on the taxpayer.
Issue -
- Whether a GST order digitally signed within the limitation period but uploaded and served after the expiry of the limitation period remains a valid order under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
Order -
- The Court held that the GST law deliberately distinguishes between the terms "issue" and "service." While Section 73 requires the proper officer to issue the order within the prescribed limitation period, the manner of service is separately governed by Section 169 and Rule 142. Therefore, both expressions cannot be treated as synonymous.
- The Court observed that an order is issued once it is duly authenticated and digitally signed by the competent authority within the prescribed time. Uploading the order on the GST portal is only one of the statutory methods of communicating or serving the order and does not determine the date of issuance.
- The Court rejected reliance on decisions under the Income-tax Act and earlier tax statutes, noting that the GST Act uses different statutory language and legislative intent. Since taxing statutes must be interpreted strictly, meanings from other enactments cannot be imported where the GST law expressly distinguishes between issuance and service.
- Accordingly, the Court ruled that the adjudication order, having been digitally signed on 30 April 2024, was validly issued within the limitation period. Its subsequent upload on 1 May 2024 did not invalidate the order or affect the jurisdiction of the proper officer, and the writ petition was dismissed.
