GST Appeals & Limitation: Allahabad High Court Says Revenue Must Prove Actual Date of Communication
Background and Context
A series of writ petitions came up before the Allahabad High Court in which different assessees challenged appellate orders passed under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act). In each case, the First Appellate Authority had thrown out the appeal purely on the ground of limitation, without addressing the substantive issues arising from the assessment or adjudication orders.
The assessees approached the High Court contending that:
- Their appeals had in fact been filed within limitation if the correct “date of communication” of the original orders was considered.
- The appellate authorities had ignored binding precedent on what constitutes “communication” under
Section 169of theGST Act. - They had been deprived of their statutory right of appeal due to an erroneous and mechanical approach to limitation.
The State, on the other hand, argued that the writ petitions were not maintainable because the assessees had yet another statutory remedy by way of second appeal to the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112 read with Section 113 of the GST Act.
State’s Objection: Alternative Remedy Before GST Tribunal
Reliance on Section 112 and Section 113
On behalf of the State, it was argued that:
- Once an assessee has already availed the remedy of first appeal under
Section 107, the proper course is to proceed to the next statutory forum underSection 112. - The Appellate Tribunal under
Section 113is conferred with extensive powers:- To confirm, modify or annul the decision appealed against.
- To remand the matter to the Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority or the original adjudicating authority with appropriate directions.
- To permit additional evidence where necessary.
Therefore, according to the State, the assessees should not bypass this detailed appellate structure by invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The State relied on decisions such as:
United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon & Others [(2010) 8 SCC 110]Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others [(2021) 6 SCC 771]Varimadugu Obi Reddy Vs. B. Sreenivasulu & Others [(2023) 2 SCC 168]
to reinforce the principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be exercised when an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
Assessees’ Response: Binding Precedent on ‘Communication’ Ignored
Counsel for the assessees countered the preliminary objection by pointing out that the core issue in these writ petitions was already settled by binding judgments of the Allahabad High Court:
M/S Bambino Agro Industries Limited Vs. State of U.P. [(2026) 38 Centax 81 (All.)]M/s Associate Molasses Transport Company Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Writ Tax No. 539/2026, decided on 27.01.2026]M/s A.S. Engineering Vs. State of U.P. & Another [Writ Tax No. 1314/2026, decided on 16.04.2026]
These decisions had:
- Examined the meaning and effect of “service” and “communication” of notices/orders under
Section 169of theGST Act. - Clarified when the limitation period under
Section 107for filing an appeal actually begins. - Held that where the assessee discloses a particular date as the date on which the order was actually communicated, a presumption arises in favour of the assessee, and the burden shifts to the Revenue to establish an earlier date of communication through reliable material.
The assessees submitted that:
- The impugned appellate orders failed to follow these binding legal principles.
- Judicial discipline and consistency required the High Court to intervene rather than push them to the Tribunal.
Reference was also made to decisions such as:
Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakur Vs. Ratilal Motilal Patel [AIR 1968 SC 372]Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others [(2021) 6 SCC 771]
primarily to stress the importance of adherence to binding precedent and the circumstances in which writ jurisdiction can be exercised despite the availability of an alternative remedy.