๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐ป๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ฐ๐๐๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ, ๐ก๐ผ๐ ๐ ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ
๐๐น๐น๐ฎ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐
The ๐๐น๐น๐ฎ๐ต๐ฎ๐ฏ๐ฎ๐ฑ ๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐ has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under ๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ญ๐ฌ๐ณ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐๐ฆ๐ง ๐๐ฐ๐ commences from the date on which the adjudication order is ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ to the taxpayer, and not merely from the date on which the order is passed or issued.
Where the taxpayer specifically declares the actual date of communication, the burden shifts to the Revenue to disprove that date through ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ด๐ฒ๐ป๐ ๐ฒ๐๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ. In the absence of such evidence, the date declared by the taxpayer must be accepted.
๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฒ๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐น๐
๐๐ผ๐ฒ๐๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฎ ๐ฃ๐๐. ๐๐๐ฑ. ๐. ๐๐ฒ๐ฝ๐๐๐ ๐๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป๐ฒ๐ฟ & ๐๐ป๐ผ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ
๐ช๐ฟ๐ถ๐ ๐ง๐ฎ๐
๐ก๐ผ. ๐ฎ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฒ
๐๐ฒ๐ฐ๐ถ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฒ: 27.05.2026
๐๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐
โ The petitioner became aware of the adjudication order only on 09.11.2025, when recovery proceedings were initiated.
โ The petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, specifically stating that the order had been communicated only on that date.
โ However, the Appellate Authority treated the date of passing of the order as the date of communication and dismissed the appeal as time-barred, without examining the merits or verifying proof of service.
๐๐ถ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ผ๐๐ฟ๐โ๐ ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด๐
๐ฆ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ญ๐ฌ๐ณ(๐ญ) deliberately uses the word โ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑโ and not โ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑโ or โ๐ถ๐๐๐๐ฒ๐ฑโ. Therefore, the limitation period begins only upon ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ถ๐๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป of the order.
Once the taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication, the ๐ผ๐ป๐๐ ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐๐ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฅ๐ฒ๐๐ฒ๐ป๐๐ฒ to disprove that date by producing cogent evidence, such as:
โ GST portal records,
โ Delivery acknowledgements, or
โ Any other valid proof of service.
In the present case, the Revenue failed to rebut the taxpayerโs declared communication date of 09.11.2025.
Accordingly, the High Court held that dismissing the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, without examining the actual date of communication, was ๐น๐ฒ๐ด๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐๐ป๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฏ๐น๐ฒ.
๐๐ฒ๐ ๐ง๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐๐ฎ๐
For the purpose of Section 107 of the CGST Act, ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐น๐ถ๐บ๐ถ๐๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ผ๐ฑ ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ณ๐ถ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐ฎ๐ป ๐ฎ๐ฝ๐ฝ๐ฒ๐ฎ๐น ๐๐๐ฎ๐ฟ๐๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ถ๐ฐ๐ต ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฑ๐ท๐๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ถ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฎ๐น๐น๐ ๐ฐ๐ผ๐บ๐บ๐๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ผ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ฎ๐ ๐ฝ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ๐ฟโ๐ป๐ผ๐ ๐บ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐น๐ ๐ณ๐ฟ๐ผ๐บ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐๐ฒ ๐ฝ๐ฟ๐ถ๐ป๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐ผ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ฟ. Where the Revenue cannot establish proper service of the order, the taxpayerโs declared date of communication deserves acceptance.
Radhika Goyal is Author of Taxconcept Gurugram head office, for deeply reported tax, gst and income tax articles on issues that matter. He splits her time between New Delhi and Bengaluru, and has worked as a reporter, a podcaster and an editor for publications across India.
