Tripura High Court Holds That Mere Upload of Order on GST Portal Does Not Start Limitation for Filing Appeal — Cites Digital Divide

The Chief Justice-led bench held that uploading an order on the portal does not result in constructive notice, and limitation runs only from the date of actual knowledge by the assessee.

In a detailed judgment surveying the jurisprudence across multiple High Courts, the Tripura High Court has held that where an adjudication order under the TSGST Act was only uploaded on the GST portal without being communicated through any other mode prescribed in Section 169, the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 does not begin to run from the date of the order but from the date of actual knowledge by the assessee [Shri Shailesh Das, Proprietor of M/s Gandacherra Bricks Industries v. State of Tripura & Ors.].

The bench led by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha was hearing a challenge to the appellate authority’s refusal to condone a delay of two years and nine months in filing an appeal. The appellant’s registration had been kept alive but no production had taken place since 2016. The adjudication order was passed on 08.02.2021 and uploaded on the portal the same day, but the petitioner only discovered it in February 2024 when applying for a tax clearance certificate.

The Court extensively relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) and observed that courts cannot ignore the digital divide and must take judicial notice of the fact that small businesses overwhelmingly rely on consultants for portal-related compliances. The Court also drew on the Delhi High Court’s decision in Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST), which directed the GST department to serve assessees through the portal and also through personal email, speed post, and mobile phone.

Distinguishing the Allahabad High Court’s decision in M/s Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. v. State of U.P. — cited by the revenue — the Court noted that even that bench had held that the deeming fiction of constructive service under Section 169(2) is not available for the mode of service specified in clause (d) of Section 169(1) (i.e. portal upload), and applies only to service effected through clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f).

Setting aside the appellate order, the Court condoned the delay and restored the appeal, directing the appellate authority to decide it on merits within three months — and to communicate the order by modes other than uploading on the portal.

2026-juristway.com-3083-HC(Tripura)-GST