The Allahabad High Court addressed the issue of whether uploading adjudication orders on the GST Common Portal suffices as valid communication under Section 107 of the GST Acts. The case involved M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. and others challenging orders under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, and the UPGST Act, 2017. The petitioners argued that they were unaware of the proceedings or orders due to the lack of separate physical or electronic notification, which led to recovery actions after the appeal period expired without effective service of the adjudication orders.
The court examined if merely posting orders on the portal constitutes valid "communication" to start the limitation period for appeals. It concluded that "communicated" under Section 107 implies effective service to the assessee. Without proof of notice or alert, uploading orders does not meet the legal standard for communication. This failure to properly serve orders violates natural justice principles and denies the statutory right to appeal.
Read More: GST - Gujarat High court: GST Appeal filed beyond 120 Days cannot be entertained; Article 226 cannot override statutory limitation [Order attached]
Given the systemic and technical issues with the GSTN portal, the court determined that the writ petitions were valid despite the existence of an alternative remedy. It decided to entertain the petitions, scrutinizing the legality of service, limitation, and recovery actions under the GST framework. The court's decision underscores the necessity for clear and effective communication of adjudication orders to ensure taxpayers' rights are upheld.
Parties: M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Order date: 19.12.2025
Facts –
- The petitioners challenged adjudication orders passed under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 and the UPGST Act, 2017.
- The show cause notices and adjudication orders were allegedly served only by uploading them on the GST Common Portal, without any separate physical or electronic intimation.
- The petitioners contended that they had no actual knowledge of the proceedings or the orders within the statutory limitation period.
- Recovery proceedings were initiated against the petitioners after expiry of the appeal period under Section 107, without effective service of the adjudication orders.
Issue –
- Whether mere uploading of adjudication orders on the GST Common Portal constitutes valid “communication” under Section 107 of the GST Acts so as to trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal?
Order –
- The Court held that the expression “communicated” under Section 107 requires effective and meaningful service of the order on the assessee.
- Mere uploading of adjudication orders on the GST portal, without proof of notice or alert, may not amount to valid communication in law.
- Failure to properly serve the orders results in violation of principles of natural justice and denial of the statutory right of appeal.
- Considering persistent systemic and technical issues with the GSTN portal, the Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable despite the availability of an alternate remedy.
- The Court entertained the writ petitions and proceeded to examine the legality of service, limitation, and recovery actions under the GST regime.
