The Calcutta High Court ruled that a GST adjudication order issued within the statutory limitation period remains valid even if it is uploaded on the GST portal a day later. This decision was made in the case of M. M. Motors & Another versus the Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Others. The petitioners received a show cause notice under Section 73 for the fiscal year 2018-19, with the adjudication order digitally signed on 30 April 2024. However, it was uploaded on the GST portal on 1 May 2024.
Read more: West Bengal AAAR - CKD e-rickshaw qualifies as a complete vehicle attracting 5% GST only when all components required for assembly are supplied together as a complete CKD/SKD kit [Order attached]
The petitioners challenged the validity of the adjudication order, arguing that an order is complete only when served by uploading it on the GST portal. They claimed the order was time-barred since the upload occurred after 30 April 2024. The State contended that the order was issued and authenticated within the limitation period, and the subsequent upload was only related to its service.
The Court observed that the CGST/WBGST Act distinguishes between "issue" and "service", with Section 73 addressing the issuance limitation and Section 169 governing the service. The Court held that the order was issued within the statutory time limit, and uploading it later did not affect its validity.
The Court concluded that an order issued within the limitation does not become time-barred if served later. Thus, the writ petition was dismissed, affirming that the statutory limitation under Section 73 applies only to the issuance of the order, not its service.
Order Date - 13 July 2026
Parties: M. M. Motors & Another Vs Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Others
Facts -
- Petitioner M. M. Motors & Another received a show cause notice under Section 73 for FY 2018-19. The adjudication order was digitally signed on 30 April 2024, but its summary in Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded on the GST portal on 1 May 2024.
- The petitioners initially filed a statutory appeal, where the tax demand was modified. However, they later approached the High Court challenging only the validity of the original adjudication order on the ground that it was uploaded after the extended limitation period.
- The petitioners argued that an order is complete only when it is served by uploading it on the GST portal. Since the upload took place after 30 April 2024, they claimed the order was barred by limitation.
- The State contended that the adjudicating authority had already issued and digitally authenticated the order within the extended limitation period on 30 April 2024, while uploading on the next day related only to its service and did not invalidate the order.
Issue -
- Whether a GST order issued within the limitation period under Section 73 remains valid when it is uploaded on the GST portal and served after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period.
Order -
- The Court observed that the CGST/WBGST Act deliberately distinguishes between "issue" and "service". While Section 73 prescribes the limitation for issuing an order, Section 169 separately governs the manner in which the order is served upon the taxpayer. Therefore, these two concepts cannot be treated as identical.
- The Court held that the adjudication order had been digitally signed on 30 April 2024, which completed the act of issuance within the statutory time limit. Uploading the order in Form GST DRC-07 on the following day merely fulfilled the requirement of communication and recovery procedure and did not affect the validity of the order.
- The Court further explained that the legislature intentionally replaced the earlier statutory framework, where limitation was linked with service, by introducing a separate mechanism under GST. Since Section 73 attaches limitation only to issuance and not to service, the Court refused to import interpretations from earlier tax statutes or the Information Technology Act.
- Concluding the matter, the Court ruled that an order issued within limitation does not become time-barred merely because it is served or uploaded later. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, holding that the statutory limitation under Section 73 applies only to the issuance of the order and not to its service.
