Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the respondents in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) on 29.04.2024 by creating a negative balance.It was contended that such blocking exceeded the available Input Tax Credit and was done without prior notice, violating Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.The petitioner argued that Rule 86A only allows restriction of credit actually available in the ECL and does not permit creation of artificial negative balance.Court Decision:The Court held that Rule 86A can be invoked only when Input Tax Credit is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.Blocking of ITC beyond the available amount, resulting in a negative balance, is without jurisdiction and impermissible.Rule 86A only allows temporary restriction on utilisation of existing credit and does not empower authorities to create debit entries or negative balances.The impugned action was set aside to the extent it blocked credit in excess of the available ITC, and the writ petition was allowed.The Court clarified that authorities are free to take recourse to statutory recovery mechanisms under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/HGST Acts.Cases Referred:Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratBest Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal CommissionerKings Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Director, DGGIKaruna Rajendra Ringshia vs Commissioner of CGSTM/s Shyam Sunder Strips vs Union of IndiaM/s Laxmi Fine Chem vs Assistant CommissionerRawman Metal and Alloys vs Deputy Commissioner of State TaxBasanta Kumar Shaw vs Assistant Commissioner of RevenueM/s RM Dairy Products LLP vs State of U.P.Sugna Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent of Central Tax
SPL Motors (P) Ltd. vs Union of India and Others 19-11-2025
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the respondents in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) on 29.04.2024 by creating a negative balance.It was contended that such blocking exceeded the available Input Tax Credit and was done without prior notice, violating Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.The petitioner argued that Rule 86A only allows restriction of credit actually available in the ECL and does not permit creation of artificial negative balance.Court Decision:The Court held that Rule 86A can be invoked only when Input Tax Credit is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.Blocking of ITC beyond the available amount, resulting in a negative balance, is without jurisdiction and impermissible.Rule 86A only allows temporary restriction on utilisation of existing credit and does not empower authorities to create debit entries or negative balances.The impugned action was set aside to the extent it blocked credit in excess of the available ITC, and the writ petition was allowed.The Court clarified that authorities are free to take recourse to statutory recovery mechanisms under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/HGST Acts.Cases Referred:Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratBest Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal CommissionerKings Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Director, DGGIKaruna Rajendra Ringshia vs Commissioner of CGSTM/s Shyam Sunder Strips vs Union of IndiaM/s Laxmi Fine Chem vs Assistant CommissionerRawman Metal and Alloys vs Deputy Commissioner of State TaxBasanta Kumar Shaw vs Assistant Commissioner of RevenueM/s RM Dairy Products LLP vs State of U.P.Sugna Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent of Central Tax
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the respondents in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) on 29.04.2024 by creating a negative balance.It was contended that such blocking exceeded the available Input Tax Credit and was done without prior notice, violating Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.The petitioner argued that Rule 86A only allows restriction of credit actually available in the ECL and does not permit creation of artificial negative balance.Court Decision:The Court held that Rule 86A can be invoked only when Input Tax Credit is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.Blocking of ITC beyond the available amount, resulting in a negative balance, is without jurisdiction and impermissible.Rule 86A only allows temporary restriction on utilisation of existing credit and does not empower authorities to create debit entries or negative balances.The impugned action was set aside to the extent it blocked credit in excess of the available ITC, and the writ petition was allowed.The Court clarified that authorities are free to take recourse to statutory recovery mechanisms under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/HGST Acts.Cases Referred:Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratBest Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal CommissionerKings Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Director, DGGIKaruna Rajendra Ringshia vs Commissioner of CGSTM/s Shyam Sunder Strips vs Union of IndiaM/s Laxmi Fine Chem vs Assistant CommissionerRawman Metal and Alloys vs Deputy Commissioner of State TaxBasanta Kumar Shaw vs Assistant Commissioner of RevenueM/s RM Dairy Products LLP vs State of U.P.Sugna Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent of Central Tax
SPL Motors (P) Ltd. vs Union of India and Others 19-11-2025
Facts :The petitioner, a registered GST dealer, challenged the action of the respondents in blocking its Electronic Credit Ledger (ECL) on 29.04.2024 by creating a negative balance.It was contended that such blocking exceeded the available Input Tax Credit and was done without prior notice, violating Rule 86A and principles of natural justice.The petitioner argued that Rule 86A only allows restriction of credit actually available in the ECL and does not permit creation of artificial negative balance.Court Decision:The Court held that Rule 86A can be invoked only when Input Tax Credit is available in the Electronic Credit Ledger.Blocking of ITC beyond the available amount, resulting in a negative balance, is without jurisdiction and impermissible.Rule 86A only allows temporary restriction on utilisation of existing credit and does not empower authorities to create debit entries or negative balances.The impugned action was set aside to the extent it blocked credit in excess of the available ITC, and the writ petition was allowed.The Court clarified that authorities are free to take recourse to statutory recovery mechanisms under Sections 73 and 74 of the CGST/HGST Acts.Cases Referred:Samay Alloys India Pvt. Ltd. vs State of GujaratBest Crop Science Pvt. Ltd. vs Principal CommissionerKings Security Guard Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Director, DGGIKaruna Rajendra Ringshia vs Commissioner of CGSTM/s Shyam Sunder Strips vs Union of IndiaM/s Laxmi Fine Chem vs Assistant CommissionerRawman Metal and Alloys vs Deputy Commissioner of State TaxBasanta Kumar Shaw vs Assistant Commissioner of RevenueM/s RM Dairy Products LLP vs State of U.P.Sugna Sponge and Power Pvt. Ltd. vs Superintendent of Central Tax
The writ petition was allowed. The assessment and demand order dated 29.08.2024, as well as the consequential attachment order dated 11.09.2025, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that the show cause notice for the financial year 2019–20 proposed recovery of tax amounting to Rs. 29,07,002/- and did not contain any proposal for imposition of interest or penalty.However, the impugned order imposed interest and penalty under CGST and SGST totaling Rs. 55,71,191/-. The Court found that such imposition was contrary to Section 75(7), which provides that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.Since the show cause notice contained no reference to interest or penalty, the impugned order was held to be unsustainable and arbitrary.The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:No case law was referred to in the order.
Chaurasiya Zarda Bhandar vs State of U.P. & Others 19-11-2025
The writ petition was allowed. The assessment and demand order dated 29.08.2024, as well as the consequential attachment order dated 11.09.2025, were quashed and set aside.The Court held that the show cause notice for the financial year 2019–20 proposed recovery of tax amounting to Rs. 29,07,002/- and did not contain any proposal for imposition of interest or penalty.However, the impugned order imposed interest and penalty under CGST and SGST totaling Rs. 55,71,191/-. The Court found that such imposition was contrary to Section 75(7), which provides that the amount of tax, interest and penalty demanded in the order shall not be in excess of the amount specified in the notice and no demand shall be confirmed on grounds other than those specified in the notice.Since the show cause notice contained no reference to interest or penalty, the impugned order was held to be unsustainable and arbitrary.The matter was remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.Cases Referred by Court:No case law was referred to in the order.
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 15.05.2025 passed under Section 107 dismissing the appeal against an adjudication order under Section 74 dated 07.01.2025. The appeal was filed on 26.04.2025, beyond three months but within the condonable period of one month under Section 107(4). The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay and non-payment of pre-deposit though the adjudication order determined only interest and penalty and no tax demand.Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 107(6) as it stood at the time of filing the appeal, pre-deposit was required only in respect of the amount of tax in dispute. Since the impugned order involved only penalty and interest and there was no tax demand, there was no statutory requirement of pre-deposit. The Court observed that the proviso mandating pre-deposit even for penalty-only orders was inserted by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 01.10.2025 and was not applicable to the present case.The Court found that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the appellate authority shall hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.Cases Referred by Court:None mentioned in the order.
Barjinder Singh Kohli vs The Assistant Commissioner of Revenue & Ors. 03-11-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged an appellate order dated 15.05.2025 passed under Section 107 dismissing the appeal against an adjudication order under Section 74 dated 07.01.2025. The appeal was filed on 26.04.2025, beyond three months but within the condonable period of one month under Section 107(4). The appellate authority rejected the appeal on the grounds of delay and non-payment of pre-deposit though the adjudication order determined only interest and penalty and no tax demand.Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 107(6) as it stood at the time of filing the appeal, pre-deposit was required only in respect of the amount of tax in dispute. Since the impugned order involved only penalty and interest and there was no tax demand, there was no statutory requirement of pre-deposit. The Court observed that the proviso mandating pre-deposit even for penalty-only orders was inserted by the Finance Act, 2025 with effect from 01.10.2025 and was not applicable to the present case.The Court found that the appellate authority erred in rejecting the appeal for non-payment of pre-deposit. The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to consider the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay. If the delay is condoned, the appellate authority shall hear the appeal on merits without insisting on pre-deposit.Cases Referred by Court:None mentioned in the order.
Facts (Background):An inspection was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 08.03.2012 in relation to transactions in Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Made Foreign Liquor. Based on the inspection, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2018 proposing penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was issued. The assessee challenged the notice contending that it was issued after an unreasonable delay and therefore barred by limitation.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that even though Section 45A of the Act does not prescribe any specific limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period of time. Referring to other provisions of the Act, the Court observed that the statute prescribes a five-year period for completion of assessments and escaped assessments, which can be treated as a reasonable benchmark.Since the inspection related to the assessment year 2011-12 and the show cause notice was issued only on 20.12.2018, the notice was issued beyond the reasonable period of five years. The Court further held that repeated notices issued by the department seeking production of records could not extend the limitation period. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the show cause notice was quashed.Cases Referred by Court:State of Punjab & Others vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.W.A. No. 344 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)W.P.(C) No. 2253 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)
Taj Garden Retreat vs. State of Kerala & Anr. 23-10-2025
Facts (Background):An inspection was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 08.03.2012 in relation to transactions in Indian Made Foreign Liquor and Foreign Made Foreign Liquor. Based on the inspection, a show cause notice dated 20.12.2018 proposing penalty under Section 45A of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 was issued. The assessee challenged the notice contending that it was issued after an unreasonable delay and therefore barred by limitation.Court Decision:The Division Bench held that even though Section 45A of the Act does not prescribe any specific limitation period for initiating penalty proceedings, such proceedings must be initiated within a reasonable period of time. Referring to other provisions of the Act, the Court observed that the statute prescribes a five-year period for completion of assessments and escaped assessments, which can be treated as a reasonable benchmark.Since the inspection related to the assessment year 2011-12 and the show cause notice was issued only on 20.12.2018, the notice was issued beyond the reasonable period of five years. The Court further held that repeated notices issued by the department seeking production of records could not extend the limitation period. Accordingly, the writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the show cause notice was quashed.Cases Referred by Court:State of Punjab & Others vs. Bhatinda District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.W.A. No. 344 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)W.P.(C) No. 2253 of 2017 (Kerala High Court)
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 30.06.2023 passed under Section 74 of the KGST Act read with Section 122(1)(vii), which demanded tax, interest and a penalty of ₹6,05,17,933. In the show cause notice dated 27.03.2023, tax and penalty were proposed in equal amounts. However, while passing the final order, the authority drastically reduced the tax and interest liability but increased the penalty amount far beyond the penalty proposed in the show cause notice. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 74(1) permits imposition of penalty only up to an amount equivalent to the tax specified in the show cause notice. Section 75(7) further provides that the amount demanded in the final order cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and cannot be based on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice.The Court observed that in the present case the tax and interest amounts were reduced in the final order, but the penalty was increased beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice and also beyond the tax determined in the order. Such action was contrary to Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent of the penalty demand of ₹6,05,17,933 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the issue of penalty, while directing the petitioner to pay the confirmed tax and interest amounts.Cases Referred by Court:None.
Metal N Strips vs. Joint Commissioner of Commercial Tax (Appeals-3) & Anr. 17-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the adjudication order dated 30.06.2023 passed under Section 74 of the KGST Act read with Section 122(1)(vii), which demanded tax, interest and a penalty of ₹6,05,17,933. In the show cause notice dated 27.03.2023, tax and penalty were proposed in equal amounts. However, while passing the final order, the authority drastically reduced the tax and interest liability but increased the penalty amount far beyond the penalty proposed in the show cause notice. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the penalty.Court Decision:The High Court held that Section 74(1) permits imposition of penalty only up to an amount equivalent to the tax specified in the show cause notice. Section 75(7) further provides that the amount demanded in the final order cannot exceed the amount specified in the show cause notice and cannot be based on grounds other than those mentioned in the notice.The Court observed that in the present case the tax and interest amounts were reduced in the final order, but the penalty was increased beyond the amount proposed in the show cause notice and also beyond the tax determined in the order. Such action was contrary to Sections 74 and 75 of the KGST Act.Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders to the extent of the penalty demand of ₹6,05,17,933 and remitted the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration limited to the issue of penalty, while directing the petitioner to pay the confirmed tax and interest amounts.Cases Referred by Court:None.
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was filed on 25.11.2024 against the adjudication order dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner contended that the limitation period of three months under Section 107(1) should be computed from the next day of the order and that the appeal was filed within the additional condonable period of one month under Section 107(4).Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the order is passed must be excluded while computing the limitation period. Accordingly, the three-month limitation under Section 107(1) commenced from 27.07.2024 and expired on 27.10.2024. The further condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) extended up to 26.11.2024. Since the appeal was filed on 25.11.2024, it was within the permissible period.The Court set aside the order of the appellate authority which had incorrectly treated the appeal as time-barred and directed that the appeal be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:· State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 210· Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 197· Dodds v. Walker, (1981) 1 WLR 1027; (1981) 2 All ER 609
Laxmi Motors vs State of M.P. and Others 15-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner challenged the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as time-barred. The appeal was filed on 25.11.2024 against the adjudication order dated 26.07.2024. The petitioner contended that the limitation period of three months under Section 107(1) should be computed from the next day of the order and that the appeal was filed within the additional condonable period of one month under Section 107(4).Court Decision:The Court held that under Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the day on which the order is passed must be excluded while computing the limitation period. Accordingly, the three-month limitation under Section 107(1) commenced from 27.07.2024 and expired on 27.10.2024. The further condonable period of one month under Section 107(4) extended up to 26.11.2024. Since the appeal was filed on 25.11.2024, it was within the permissible period.The Court set aside the order of the appellate authority which had incorrectly treated the appeal as time-barred and directed that the appeal be decided on merits.Cases Referred by Court:· State of Himachal Pradesh and Another v. Himachal Techno Engineers and Another, (2010) 12 SCC 210· Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 197· Dodds v. Walker, (1981) 1 WLR 1027; (1981) 2 All ER 609
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Milroc Good Earth Developers vs Union of India & Ors. 09-10-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a developer engaged in construction projects, challenged the show cause notice dated 28.03.2025 issued under Sections 74(1) and 74A of the CGST Act proposing tax, interest and penalty for the period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2023-24. The petitioner contended that the notice illegally clubbed multiple financial years in a single show cause notice contrary to the scheme of the CGST Act.Court Decision:The Court held that under the statutory scheme of the CGST Act, tax liability is determined with reference to the “tax period”, which is linked to the return filed for that period. Returns are filed either monthly or annually, and when the assessment is based on annual returns, the relevant tax period corresponds to the particular financial year.The Court observed that Sections 73(10) and 74(10) prescribe limitation for issuing orders based on the due date for filing the annual return for the respective financial year. Since the limitation operates separately for each financial year, the statute does not permit consolidation of multiple financial years into a single show cause notice.The Court further held that issuance of consolidated show cause notices covering several financial years frustrates the statutory limitation scheme and deprives the assessee of the opportunity to give year-specific explanations. Accordingly, the consolidated show cause notices issued for multiple financial years were held to be without jurisdiction and were quashed.Cases Referred by Court:· R A and Co. v. Additional Commissioner of Central Taxes, W.P. No.17239 of 2025 (Madras High Court)· Titan Company Ltd. v. Joint Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, W.P. No.33164 of 2023 (Madras High Court)· Veremax Technologie Services Limited v. Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, W.P. No.15810 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Bangalore Golf Club v. Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Enforcement)-22, W.P. No.16500 of 2024 (Karnataka High Court)· Tharayil Medicals v. Deputy Commissioner, 2025:KER:30805 (Kerala High Court)· State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others v. Caltex (India) Ltd., AIR 1966 SC 1350· RioCare India Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner, CGST & C.Ex., (2025) 26 Centax 339 (Bombay High Court)· Ambika Traders v. Additional Commissioner, Adjudication DGGSTI, CGST Delhi North, W.P.(C) No.4783 of 2025 (Delhi High Court)
Case Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions. Cases Referred by Court:None.
Subir Ghosh v. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) & Ors. 17-09-2025
Case Facts / Background:The petitioner challenged a bank attachment notice issued for recovery of tax dues of a company in which he was a director. An assessment order had been passed against the company for the tax period 2018–19. The petitioner claimed resignation from the company and sought immunity under Section 89(1), submitting a representation to authorities. The company had separately challenged the assessment order, which was pending before the Court. Court Decision:The Court held that the issue of petitioner’s liability under Section 89 requires adjudication. It directed the authorities to treat the impugned attachment notice as a show cause notice and decide the matter after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to submit a detailed representation within 30 days, and the authority to pass orders within two months thereafter. The bank attachment was ordered to be lifted pending such adjudication, subject to conditions. Cases Referred by Court:None.
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· M/s Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another 17-09-2025
Facts (Background):The petitioner, a registered assessee, was subjected to inspection and show cause notices were issued under Section 74 of the TNGST Act for FY 2020-21 and 2021-22. Orders in Form GST DRC-07 dated 28.02.2024 demanding tax, interest and penalty were passed. The petitioner contended that the orders were only uploaded on the GST portal and were not otherwise communicated, resulting in the lapse of the time limit for filing appeal under Section 107.Court Decision:The Court held that Section 107 provides that limitation for filing appeal runs from the date on which the order is “communicated” to the assessee. Section 169 deals with modes of “service”, but the expressions “served” and “communicated” are not synonymous. Mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not amount to communication of the order to the assessee.Since the impugned orders had only been uploaded on the portal and were not communicated to the petitioner through other modes, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced. The Court directed the authority to communicate the impugned orders to the petitioner, after which the petitioner would be at liberty to file an appeal under Section 107. Until such communication, the orders could not be enforced. Cases Referred by Court:· Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax, Nungambakkam Zone IV, Chennai Central Range, Chennai, 2022 SCC OnLine Mad 8986· Koduvayur Constructions v. Assistant Commissioner-Works Contract, Palakad, 2023 SCC OnLine Ker 11392· Ram Prasad Sharma v. Chief Commissioner, 2020 SCC OnLine MP 4650· New Hanumat Marbles v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine P&H 7171· Dhanraj v. Vikram Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 456· Shahul Hameed v. CTO, Tuticorin-II (WP(MD) No.26481 of 2024)· Namasivaya Auto Cars v. The Deputy Sales Tax Officer-I, Korattur, 2025 (6) TMI 2027· Binod Traders v. Union of India, 2025 (6) TMI 251 (Patna High Court)· Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2707· A. Sanjeevi Naidu v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Kanchipuram, 1972 SCC OnLine Mad 347· R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1994) 1 AC 530· NHAI v. Madhukar Kumar, (2022) 14 SCC 661· Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation, 2025 INSC 236· Southern Electricity Supply Co. of Orissa Ltd. v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill, (2012) 2 SCC 108· M/s Lalaram Thekedar v. Union of India, Writ Tax No.2786 of 2025 (Allahabad High Court)
