Azad Sweets vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, Azad Sweets, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 08.06.2026, which rejected their appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024. The Order-in-Original, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ajmer, raised a GST demand of Rs. 4,08,514/- for Financial Year 2018-19 due to failure to discharge outward tax liability. The petitioner's appeal against this order was filed on 01.10.2024, with a delay of 34 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation, stating it lacked the power to condone the delay. The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide, as the show cause notice and the original order were only uploaded on the GSTN portal and not effectively served. They also claimed to be unaware of the proceedings due to reliance on their accountant and infrequent portal checks, only learning about the demand in October 2024.

Held

The Court, in respectful agreement with a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., held that service of a show cause notice (SCN) upon an assessee cannot be deemed sufficient merely by its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. Consequently, if an ex-parte order-in-original is passed based solely on portal upload of the SCN without a reply, the proceedings should be restored to the stage of SCN issuance, allowing the petitioner to file a reply within four weeks. Furthermore, if an order-in-original was served only by uploading on the portal and an appeal against it was dismissed on limitation, the Appellate Authority's order should be set aside, and the appeal restored for hearing on merits. The Court found that the delay of 34 days in filing the appeal was beyond the petitioner's control, and non-adjudication on merits would cause grave injury. Therefore, the delay was condoned, and the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal and adjudicate it on merits without raising the issue of limitation. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the appeal afresh within 30 days of the instant order's upload.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and an order-in-original on the common GSTN portal, without ensuring actual receipt or acknowledgment by the petitioner, constitutes sufficient service under the CGST Act, thereby triggering the limitation period for filing an appeal? 2. Whether the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone the delay in filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority when the Appellate Authority itself lacks such power, and if so, on what grounds? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and beyond their control. They argued that the show cause notice and the order-in-original were not effectively served, having been merely uploaded on the GSTN portal. They also asserted that no proper opportunity for personal hearing was provided. The petitioner relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court (M/s M R Traders v. UOI, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors) to support their claim for condonation of delay and adjudication on merits. Respondent's Arguments: The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, arguing that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation. They cited a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. which held that limitation could be extended under Article 226, but noted that an SLP was pending against that decision.