Rajasthan High Court Condones 450-Day GST Appeal Delay Where Order Was Uploaded Only Under Wrong Portal Category
Background and Overview
The Rajasthan High Court recently adjudicated a writ petition filed by M/s KLM Power And Infrastructure Co. against the State of Rajasthan, arising out of a GST dispute for Financial Year 2018-19. The Court was called upon to examine whether a delay of 450 days in filing a statutory appeal could be condoned where the underlying order-in-original had never been physically served and had been uploaded on the GST portal under an incorrect category heading. The Court ultimately allowed the writ petition and directed the Appellate Authority to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
Facts of the Case
The Original Demand
The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Alwar, passed an order-in-original dated 18.03.2024, raising a GST demand of Rs.16,11,302/- against the petitioner for Financial Year 2018-19. The demand was raised on two counts:
- Wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit, and
- Excess outward tax declared in Form GSTR-1 as compared to Form GSTR-3B
The Service Dispute
At the heart of the controversy was the manner in which the order-in-original was communicated to the assessee. Rather than being uploaded under the standard "Notices and Orders" section of the GST common portal, the order was placed under the "Additional Notices and Orders" category. No manual or physical service was ever effected. No hard copy of the order was dispatched to the petitioner.
This distinction in portal categorisation proved pivotal, as the assessee contended that it had no reasonable means of discovering that an order had been passed against it.
Recovery Proceedings and Discovery of the Demand
Without any direct communication to the assessee, the respondent department proceeded to initiate recovery under Section 79(1)(c) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. On 19.04.2024, Form GST DRC-13 was issued to the petitioner's banker, directing the bank to remit the alleged outstanding amount of Rs.16,09,249/- to the government. As a consequence, a hold/lien was marked on the petitioner's bank account.
The petitioner's first awareness of these developments came only on 07.10.2025, when a telephonic communication from an officer of the respondent department disclosed that recovery proceedings were underway. Acting promptly upon receiving this information, the assessee filed its statutory appeal on 09.10.2025, specifically recording 07.10.2025 as the date on which the impugned order first came to its knowledge.
Further Recovery Communications
After the appeal was filed, the assessee received:
- An email dated 17.10.2025 from Indian Overseas Bank, disclosing a further recovery communication dated 01.10.2025 issued by the department.
- An email dated 03.11.2025 from Yes Bank Limited, disclosing yet another recovery communication dated 09.10.2025.
These communications confirmed that the department had taken active steps to recover the demand from the assessee's bank accounts even while the assessee remained unaware of the original order.
The Appellate Authority's Rejection
The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Alwar, vide its order dated 19.06.2026, rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The Appellate Authority acknowledged that it lacked the power under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 to condone a delay beyond the permissible period, and accordingly declined to entertain the appeal on merits.
Aggrieved by this outcome, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of the present writ petition filed on 04.08.2026, seeking: