The Bombay High Court recently addressed a case involving Liberty Oil Mills Ltd. against the Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Thane, concerning a dispute over the timeliness of an appeal related to a GST assessment order. The petitioner contended that the assessment order dated March 30, 2023, was neither uploaded on the GST portal nor served to them, and they only became aware of it in August 2023 upon receiving a show cause notice. They subsequently obtained a copy of the order on August 17, 2023, and filed an appeal on September 11, 2023, within a month of obtaining the order.
The department argued that the order was served via post on April 11, 2023, but the postal report presented had inconsistencies and overwriting, casting doubt on its reliability. The key issue was whether the appeal was time-barred under Section 107 of the MGST Act, given the alleged postal service versus the lack of portal upload and delayed knowledge claimed by the petitioner.
Read More: GST - Allahabad High Court: Proceedings cannot be initiated against seller on account of recipient found non-existent
The court found the postal report unreliable, noting that it suggested only four documents were delivered, excluding the disputed order. The petitioner’s prompt appeal against another order served on the same day supported their claim of bona fide conduct. The court concluded that the appeal filed on September 11, 2023, was within the limitation period from the date of obtaining the order copy, thus the authorities erred in rejecting it as time-barred. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and restored the petitioner’s appeal for a hearing on merits, contingent on a ₹25,000 contribution to KEM Hospital as part of a corporate social responsibility initiative.
Order date: 02 Sep 2025
Parties: Liberty Oil Mills Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Thane & Ors.
Facts -
- Petitioner challenged rejection of appeal as time-barred against assessment order dated 30.03.2023. Petitioner argued the order was never uploaded on GST portal or served, and knowledge arose only upon SCN in Aug 2023. Copy obtained on 17.08.2023; appeal filed within a month (11.09.2023).
- Department relied on a postal report alleging service on 11.04.2023, which contained overwriting and inconsistencies.
Issue -
- Whether the appeal was barred by limitation under Section 107 MGST Act when order was allegedly served by post but not uploaded on portal and petitioner claimed knowledge only in Aug 2023?
Order -
- The divisional bench of the Hon’ble High Court found postal report unreliable, with overwriting suggesting only four documents were delivered, not the disputed order of 30.03.2023.
- Petitioner’s conduct showed bona fides — it promptly appealed another order served the same day, indicating it would not have ignored this one if received. Appeal filed on 11.09.2023, soon after obtaining copy, was within limitation reckoned from 17.08.2023; authorities erred in rejecting it as time-barred.
- Impugned order dated 27.01.2025 was set aside; petitioner’s appeal restored for hearing on merits, subject to depositing ₹25,000/- with KEM Hospital (CSR contribution).
