Case Law Details
Tvl. Kodeeswaran Jewellers Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ appeal challenging the order of a learned Single Judge, who had dismissed a writ petition filed against an assessment order dated 17.07.2025. The assessment order was passed on the ground that the appellant had wrongly availed Input Tax Credit (ITC) relating to blocked credit, resulting in the levy of interest and penalty.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after finding that it had been filed six months after the assessment order and that the petitioner had not submitted any explanation to the show cause notice issued by the assessing authority.
Before the Division Bench, the appellant contended that although the assessment order had been uploaded on the GST common portal, it was not easily accessible because users had to navigate through several windows. It was argued that a small businessman could not be expected to constantly monitor the portal to check whether any order had been uploaded. According to the appellant, the assessment order came to its knowledge only after recovery proceedings were initiated, following which the writ petition was filed immediately. Therefore, the delay in challenging the order should not be held against the appellant.
The respondents argued that the writ petition had been filed after a delay of six months and that the appellant had failed to submit any reply to the show cause notice. Hence, the Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
The High Court examined the provisions of Sections 107 and 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. It noted that Section 107 allows an aggrieved person to file an appeal before the appellate authority within three months from the date of communication of the order, with a further one-month delay capable of being condoned. The Court observed that the appellant had not filed an appeal within the prescribed period.
The Court further noted that Section 169 provides multiple methods for serving notices and orders, including direct delivery, registered post, speed post, email, making the communication available on the common portal, newspaper publication, and affixture. It also provides that an order made available on the common portal is deemed to have been served on the date of publication.
Although uploading an order on the common portal constitutes valid communication under the Act, the Court took note of the appellant’s submission that accessing the portal requires navigating through multiple windows, making it difficult for a layperson to locate uploaded orders. The Court observed that this aspect was not disputed by the Bar.
Considering these circumstances, the Court held that where the authorities had not adopted any other mode of communication, it could not be expected that a common person or small businessman would repeatedly access the common portal through multiple windows to ascertain whether any order had been uploaded. The Court observed that the authorities ought to have communicated the order through other available modes as well to ensure that the limitation period for filing an appeal could be properly reckoned.
Accordingly, despite the writ petition having been filed after six months, the Court held that the appellant should be granted one further opportunity to pursue the statutory remedy. Since the assessed amount had already been recovered and the dispute was confined to interest and penalty, the Court granted liberty to the appellant to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, Tirunelveli, within fifteen days from receipt of the High Court’s order. The appellate authority was directed to consider and dispose of the appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
The writ appeal was disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs was passed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The present Writ Appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition, which had been instituted assailing the assessment order dated 17.07.2025. The said assessment order proceeded on the premise that the appellant/Writ Petitioner had availed Input Tax Credit in respect of a blocked credit and, on that basis, interest and penalty came to be levied.
2. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the submissions advanced on either side, recorded a finding that the Writ Petition had been filed after a lapse of six months from the date of the impugned assessment order. The learned Single Judge further found that the petitioner had failed to submit any explanation to the show cause notice issued by the assessing authority. Taking note of the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that, though the impugned order had been uploaded on the portal, the same could not be easily accessed, as a person is required to navigate through several windows. According to the learned counsel, a small businessman cannot be expected to constantly monitor the portal and verify whether any order has been uploaded. It is his further submission that the appellant came to know of the impugned order only when recovery proceedings were initiated pursuant thereto. Immediately thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition. Therefore, the delay, if any, in challenging the impugned order cannot be put against the appellant.
4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the appellant had filed the writ petition after a lapse of six months from the date of the assessment order. It was further submitted that the petitioner had not filed any reply. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had rightly dismissed the writ petition.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is relevant to note that under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’), any person aggrieved by an order passed by the adjudicating authority is entitled to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated, in terms of Section 107 of the said Act. The appellate authority is also empowered to condone a further delay of one month thereafter. Be that as it may, in the present case, the appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period. Since the order had already been uploaded on the portal, the same is to be treated as due communication. No doubt, under Section 107 of the said Act, an appeal is required to be filed within three months from the date of communication of the order. Section 169 of the said Act deals with service of notice and the same reads as follows:
“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.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved. “
7. The aforesaid provision makes it clear that any order or decision made available on the common portal shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published. It is also relevant to note that various other modes of service are contemplated under the Act, including communication by registered post and speed post, among others. Though uploading on the common portal also constitutes valid service/communication, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that access to the common portal requires navigating through multiple windows, and therefore it is difficult for a layman to access the same. This aspect is not disputed by the bar also.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that since the authorities have not adopted any other mode of communication, it cannot be expected of a common man or small business person to repeatedly access the common portal through multiple windows to ascertain the orders. The authorities ought to have communicated the order by other modes as well, so as to ensure that the period prescribed for filing an appeal is properly reckoned.
9. In view of the above, though the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of six months, we are of the opinion that the appellant deserves to be granted one further opportunity to prefer an appeal. Since the amount has already been recovered and the only challenge pertains to interest and penalty, the appellant is granted liberty to file an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner, Tirunelveli, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such appeal being filed, the same shall be considered and disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law.
10. With the above direction, this Writ Appeal is disposed of. WEB C( There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
