The Division Bench, led by the Chief Justice, held that the purpose of the communication requirement is to enable the person aggrieved to file an appeal, and that since the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited to one month beyond the three-month period, the obligation to communicate the order by registered post, e-mail or other effective mode under Section 169(1) is mandatory and non-delegable.
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside an order dismissing an appeal as time-barred and condoned the delay, holding that the limitation period under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act does not commence until the order is actually communicated to the person aggrieved, and that mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not constitute such communication [M/s Manoj Spares and Service Center v. State of Rajasthan and Others].
The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 26 March 2025 for non-filing of returns. Upon discovering the cancellation in April 2026, the petitioner immediately filed all pending returns, discharged the entire tax liability, and filed an appeal on 19 April 2026. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as barred by 8 months and 23 days, computing limitation from 6 November 2024 — the date of the show cause notice rather than the cancellation order — and holding that uploading on the portal was sufficient service under Section 169(1)(d).
Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur undertook a detailed analysis of the word "communicated" in Section 107(1), drawing on a series of Supreme Court decisions including Kubic Darusz v. Union of India (1990), Collector of Central Excise v. M.M. Rubber & Co. 1992, Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Qimat Rai Gupta[(2007), D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India (2003) , and Saral Wire Craft Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (2015). The Court held that the word "communicate" is a strong word requiring sufficient knowledge of the order to be imparted effectively to the person affected. Since Section 107(1) provides only three months from communication and the Appellate Authority can condone delay for only one further month — with complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act — the communication requirement must be strictly construed. The Court held that while Section 169 provides multiple modes of service including portal upload, the Adjudicating Authority must meaningfully and realistically serve the affected party, and uploading alone — especially after registration has been cancelled, when the person may have no reason to check the portal — does not amount to the communication mandated under Section 107(1).
The decision is directly relevant for taxpayers whose registrations were cancelled and who discovered the cancellation only later through recovery proceedings or other means. The limitation for appeal in such cases does not start running until the order is actually served on the person affected, and a delay computed from the date of upload rather than the date of actual knowledge or service is legally unsustainable.
2026-juristway.com-2914-HC(Rajasthan)-GST | High Court of Rajasthan | 05.10.2026
