The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025, order dated December 19, 2025] held that mere uploading of show cause notices or adjudication orders on the GST common portal does not by itself amount to effective “communication” for triggering limitation under Section 107, and limitation commences only upon actual or constructive communication strictly in terms of Section 169, where both electronic and physical modes are involved, the date of communication through physical mode may prevail unless proved otherwise.
Facts:
Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) was among a batch of assessees against whom adjudication orders were passed under the U.P. GST Act/CGST Act and which were stated by the authorities to have been served by uploading on the GST common portal.
State of Uttar Pradesh and another (“the Respondent”) treated uploading of the show cause notices and adjudication orders on the common portal, along with email/SMS alerts, as valid service and raised a preliminary objection that the writ petitions were not maintainable in view of the statutory appeal remedy.
The Petitioner contended that neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order had been effectively served or communicated; they acquired knowledge only when recovery proceedings were initiated, by which time the limitation period under Section 107 had expired and the appellate authority had no power to condone delay beyond the statutory limit.
The Respondent contended that service through electronic mode was permissible under Section 169; that uploading on the portal and dispatch of email/SMS alerts constituted valid service; and relied on judgments holding electronic communication sufficient to trigger limitation.
Aggrieved by the adjudication orders and the loss of appellate remedy due to alleged non-communication, the Petitioner approached the High Court challenging the adjudication orders and the manner of service.
Issue:
Whether uploading of a show cause notice or adjudication order on the GST common portal constitutes “communication” or valid service for the purpose of triggering limitation under Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act?
Held:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Tax No. 2707 of 2025 held as under:
- Observed that, the word “communicated” used in Section 107 is not defined, and effective communication must be examined with reference to Section 169 and the scheme of service of notices and orders.
- Observed that, it would be over-simplistic and unacceptable in law to infer that a notice or order uploaded on the common portal may be equated with “tendering” or “publication” so as to deem service in the absence of a statutory deeming fiction to that effect.
- Noted that, there is no electronic trail in GSTN to show when an assessee actually retrieved, opened, downloaded or viewed an uploaded order, and there is no statutory obligation requiring taxpayers to access the portal daily; hence no presumption of service can be drawn.
- Observed that, wherever an assessee files an appeal declaring it to be within time from the date of actual communication, a presumption may arise in favour of the assessee and the burden lies on the revenue to prove earlier communication.
- Noted that, where communication may be claimed through both electronic and physical modes, the date of communication through offline/physical mode may prevail over service through electronic mode unless the contrary is proved.
- Observed that, effective communication of show cause notices and adjudication orders must be governed by actual or constructive communication strictly in terms of Section 169.
- Directed that, the writ tax petitions were allowed and the individual adjudication orders were set aside subject to deposit of 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks.
Our Comments:
The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had followed earlier precedent in M/s Riya Construction v. State of U.P. & Ors. [2025:AHC:179271-DB], where similar issues regarding service of notices and communication under GST were considered, and difficulties caused by exclusive reliance on electronic service were noted. The reasoning in the present case aligns with that precedent in holding that effective communication must be established before limitation can run.
Relevant Provisions:
Section 107 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
“107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
(2) The Commissioner may, on his own motion, or upon request from the Commissioner of State tax or the Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any proceedings in which an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act, for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of the said decision or order and may, by order, direct any officer subordinate to him to apply to the Appellate Authority within six months from the date of communication of the said decision or order for the determination of such points arising out of the said decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner in his order.
(3) Where, in pursuance of an order under sub-section (2), the authorised officer makes an application to the Appellate Authority, such application shall be dealt with by the Appellate Authority as if it were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and such authorised officer were an appellant and the provisions of this Act relating to appeals shall apply to such application.
(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.
(5) Every appeal under this section shall be in such form and shall be verified in such manner as may be prescribed.
…”
Section 169 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
“169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.-
(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-
(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or
(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or
(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
(d) by making it available on the common portal; or
(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.
…”
CLICK HERE FOR OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY
(Author can be reached at info@a2ztaxcorp.com)
DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly of the author and A2Z Taxcorp LLP. The contents of this article are solely for informational purpose and for the reader’s personal non-commercial use. It does not constitute professional advice or recommendation of firm. Neither the author nor firm and its affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising out of any information in this article nor for any actions taken in reliance thereon. Further, no portion of our article or newsletter should be used for any purpose(s) unless authorized in writing and we reserve a legal right for any infringement on usage of our article or newsletter without prior permission.
