GST Appeal Limit Starts From Actual Communication Date

The Allahabad High Court ruled that the limitation period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act starts from the actual date of communication of the adjudication order to the taxpayer, not from the date the order was issued. The Revenue must provide evidence to dispute the taxpayer's stated communication date.

GST Appeal Limit Starts

๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง ๐—”๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—Ÿ๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—•๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐—”๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น ๐—–๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ, ๐—ก๐—ผ๐˜ ๐— ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐——๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ข๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ

๐—”๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜

The ๐—”๐—น๐—น๐—ฎ๐—ต๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ ๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜ has held that the limitation period for filing an appeal under ๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿณ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—–๐—š๐—ฆ๐—ง ๐—”๐—ฐ๐˜ commences from the date on which the adjudication order is ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ 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 ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ด๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜ ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ. In the absence of such evidence, the date declared by the taxpayer must be accepted.

๐—–๐—ฎ๐˜€๐—ฒ ๐——๐—ฒ๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—น๐˜€

๐—Ÿ๐—ผ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐—œ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ ๐—ฃ๐˜ƒ๐˜. ๐—Ÿ๐˜๐—ฑ. ๐˜ƒ. ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฝ๐˜‚๐˜๐˜† ๐—–๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฟ & ๐—”๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฟ
๐—ช๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ง๐—ฎ๐˜… ๐—ก๐—ผ. ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿณ๐Ÿฒ๐Ÿฑ ๐—ผ๐—ณ ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿฎ๐Ÿฒ
๐——๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐——๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ: 27.05.2026

๐—™๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜€

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.

๐—›๐—ถ๐—ด๐—ต ๐—–๐—ผ๐˜‚๐—ฟ๐˜โ€™๐˜€ ๐—™๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด๐˜€

๐—ฆ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐Ÿญ๐Ÿฌ๐Ÿณ(๐Ÿญ) deliberately uses the word โ€œ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑโ€ and not โ€œ๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜€๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฑโ€ or โ€œ๐—ถ๐˜€๐˜€๐˜‚๐—ฒ๐—ฑโ€. Therefore, the limitation period begins only upon ๐—ฒ๐—ณ๐—ณ๐—ฒ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ถ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป of the order.

Once the taxpayer discloses the actual date of communication, the ๐—ผ๐—ป๐˜‚๐˜€ ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ณ๐˜๐˜€ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฅ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜‚๐—ฒ 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 taxpayerโ€™s 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 ๐—น๐—ฒ๐—ด๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐˜† ๐˜‚๐—ป๐˜€๐˜‚๐˜€๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ฒ.

๐—ž๐—ฒ๐˜† ๐—ง๐—ฎ๐—ธ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜„๐—ฎ๐˜†

For the purpose of Section 107 of the CGST Act, ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—น๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ฑ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ ๐—ณ๐—ถ๐—น๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ด ๐—ฎ๐—ป ๐—ฎ๐—ฝ๐—ฝ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐—น ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฟ๐˜๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜„๐—ต๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ต ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐—ท๐˜‚๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ถ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜๐˜‚๐—ฎ๐—น๐—น๐˜† ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐˜‚๐—ป๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐˜๐—ผ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐˜๐—ฎ๐˜…๐—ฝ๐—ฎ๐˜†๐—ฒ๐—ฟโ€”๐—ป๐—ผ๐˜ ๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—น๐˜† ๐—ณ๐—ฟ๐—ผ๐—บ ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ฑ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ ๐—ฝ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฑ ๐—ผ๐—ป ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ. Where the Revenue cannot establish proper service of the order, the taxpayerโ€™s declared date of communication deserves acceptance.

Radhika Goyal

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.

Reply

Scroll to Top

Discover more from TAX CONCEPT

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading