The Madras High Court in Sharp Tanks & Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeals) (decided on 17 September 2025) held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/TNGST Act begins only from the date of effective communication of the order to the assessee, and not merely from the date the order is uploaded on the GST portal. The Court clarified that mere uploading of an order does not amount to valid communication unless the assessee is duly informed through recognized modes such as post, courier, or email, thereby ensuring compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Case Details / Parties / Proceedings
- Petitioner: Sharp Tanks & Structurals Private Limited (represented by its authorised representative)
- Respondents:
1. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals), Tamil Nadu
2. The State Tax Officer (Survey Unit), O/o the Joint Commissioner (ST) (INT), Tirunelveli - Case Nos.: W.P.(MD) Nos. 24684 & 24685 of 2025 (and connected WMPs)
- Bench / Judge: Mr. Justice G. R. Swaminathan (Madurai Bench)
- Date of Judgment: 17 September 2025
Facts
- The Petitioner (Sharp Tanks) was a registered GST assessee in Tamil Nadu.
- A surprise inspection was conducted at the petitioner’s business premises on 10–11 November 2022.
- Thereafter, show cause notices under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act (for both FY 2020-21 and FY 2021-22) were issued on 28.02.2023.
- The Petitioner responded to the SCN, appeared for personal hearing on 03.10.2023.
- The adjudication orders (in Form DRC-07) for both years were passed on 28.02.2024, imposing tax, interest and penalty.
- These orders were uploaded to the GST common portal (i.e. made available via the portal).
- The Petitioner claimed that no formal communication (by post, messenger, email, etc.) was made to them; they only came to learn of the orders later.
- Because of the lack of communication, the petitioner missed the window to file an appeal under Section 107 (three months + possible condonation) in a timely manner.
- The petitioner filed writ petitions under Article 226 (W.P. MD Nos. 24684 & 24685) and associated WMPs, seeking:
• Quashing of the impugned orders
• Condonation of delay and direction to admit the appeals.
Issues / Questions Arising
The main issue before the court was:
- Whether uploading the adjudication orders on the GST common portal alone qualifies as “communication” under Section 107 (and Section 169) of the GST Act, thereby triggering the three-month limitation period for filing appeals; or whether limitation should run only from effective communication by recognized modes.
Subsidiarily:
- Whether the delay (if any) caused by lack of communication could be condoned.
- Whether the impugned orders could be quashed or stayed until valid communication is made.
- The meaning and interplay of “service” vs “communication” in GST law (particularly Section 169).
Statutory Provisions Considered
- Section 107 (CGST / corresponding State Act): empowers appeal against order passed under SGST / IGST / CGST; appeals must be filed within three months from date of communication of the order, with power to condone delay up to 30 days.
- Section 169 (Service of notices / communications): provides various modes by which a decision, notice, order, etc., may be served, including:
(a) by tender/messenger/courier,
(b) by registered post / speed post / courier with acknowledgement,
(c) by email (as provided in registration),
(d) by making it available on the common portal,
(e) by publication, etc. - Rule 142 of Tamil Nadu GST Rules: which deals with the mechanics of notices, summaries, uploading orders (DRC-07, DRC-08) etc.
Reasoning / Analysis
The Court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:
- Meaning of “communication” vs “service”
- The Court emphasized that service (as in Section 169) and communication (in Section 107) are not fully synonymous. Just because a statute allows a mode of service does not mean that mere service (or making available) is automatically equivalent to communication in all contexts.
- Communication implies that the order must actually reach or be brought to the notice of the assessee by a recognized mode. The Court observed that a taxpayer cannot be assumed to continuously monitor the portal or discover every upload.
- Mere upload ≠ effective communication
- The Court held that merely uploading the order on the GST portal (even though permitted under Section 169(d)) is not sufficient in all cases to trigger the limitation period unless accompanied by effective communication.
- In this case, since there was no evidence that the order was communicated by post, courier, email, etc., or tendered to the petitioner, uploading alone could not start the clock.
- Equity, fairness, practical difficulties
- The Court noted practical realities: many taxpayers (especially small/medium) rely on intermediaries, may not check the portal regularly, may lose access (e.g. cancelled registration), etc. It would be unjust to penalize them purely on a technicality of non-monitoring.
- The Court observed that statutory powers (like choice of service mode) must be exercised reasonably and in conformity with principles of natural justice.
- Precedents and conflicting views
- The Court reviewed earlier decisions from Madras High Court (e.g. Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja) which had held that portal upload amounts to service, but noted that there is divergence of opinion.
- The Court observed that while some judgments treated upload as sufficient, they did not adequately consider whether the assessee actually received notice.
- It noted that the rule prescribing modes in Section 169 are alternative methods, and not cumulative, but the choice must be meaningful in each case.
- Relief and directions
- The Court directed that the impugned orders remain in abeyance until a valid communication is effected to the petitioner.
- Once communication is made, the petitioner must be permitted to file appeal within the statutory time (three months + condonation if applicable).
- The Court thus allowed the petitioner’s writ to the extent of granting a “passport” to approach the appellate authority.
Holding / Decision
- Limitation for appeal under Section 107 shall begin only from the date of effective communication of the order to the assessee (by tender, post, courier, email etc.), and not merely from the date of upload on the GST portal.
- Mere uploading of the order on the portal is not sufficient for starting the limitation period in cases where no further communication is shown.
- The impugned orders were quashed to the extent of preventing enforcement until valid communication is done.
- The Petitioner is entitled to pursue the appeal within the prescribed period once communication is validly made.
Significance / Comments
- This decision emphasizes the distinction between statutory “service” and “communication” in the GST regime. Even though the law allows multiple modes of service, the mere availability (upload) should not be equated with actual knowledge unless it reaches the assessee.
- It reinforces the principle of natural justice and ensures that limitation does not act as a trap for a taxpayer who was unaware of the order.
- The judgment may cause GST authorities to adopt more robust communication mechanisms (e.g. postal service, email, acknowledgment systems) rather than relying solely on portal uploads.
- It may also lead to further litigation on when and how portal-based service can validly constitute communication (for instance, if accompanied by email alerts, OTP acknowledgment, etc.).
-
The decision is likely to be cited in future GST appeals and writs touching the issue of limitation and communication.