Tax Vista Your weekly tax recap Edn. 287 - 27th July 2026 Kasi Viswanathan V

 

 

GSTAT Appeals: Filing is Not the Finishing Line

With the GST Appellate Tribunal now functional, considerable effort has gone into ensuring that appeals are filed within the prescribed timelines. However, filing within the original cut-off date should not be seen as the finishing line. A recent order of the Tribunal serves as a timely reminder that an appeal must also be diligently pursued after filing.

 

The appeal had been filed on 29.12.2025. Upon scrutiny, the Registry issued a defect notice on 23.04.2026. Thereafter, opportunities were granted on 07.05.2026, 12.05.2026 and 19.05.2026 to cure the defects. As the defects remained uncured, the matter was placed before the Bench in terms of Rule 24 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025. Even thereafter, the appeal was listed on 25.05.2026, 07.07.2026 and finally on 22.07.2026. Despite repeated opportunities, neither did anyone appear on behalf of the appellant nor was any application for adjournment filed. The defects also remained uncured.

 

The Tribunal observed that mere filing of an appeal does not entitle a litigant to keep defective proceedings pending indefinitely without complying with the statutory requirements. Referring to Rule 10 of the GSTAT (Procedure) Rules, 2025, which preserves the Tribunal's inherent powers to secure the ends of justice, the Tribunal also relied upon the principles that the law assists those who are vigilant (Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt) and it is in the public interest that litigation must attain finality (Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium). It further noticed that Rule 24 specifically contemplates rejection of an appeal where defects remain uncured despite notice and opportunity. Holding that the appellant had abandoned the prosecution of the appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the defective appeal for non-prosecution, without expressing any opinion on the merits.

 

The order is a useful reminder that uploading an appeal on the GSTAT portal is only the beginning. The status of the appeal, scrutiny by the Registry and any defect notices require continuous monitoring and prompt compliance. The order assumes practical significance in the present initial phase of the GSTAT. Appeals for several years were required to be filed within a relatively short period. In many cases, taxpayers and professionals also encountered practical issues relating to uploading records and supporting documents on the portal. It is therefore important not only to file the appeal but also to periodically verify the status on the GSTAT portal and promptly respond to any defect notices issued by the Registry.

 

The dismissal, however, need not always be the end of the matter. The proviso to Rule 42 permits restoration of an appeal dismissed for default where the appellant subsequently satisfies the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the matter was called for hearing. However, the threshold may become considerably higher where repeated opportunities have already been granted by both the Registry and the Bench, as happened in the present case. At the same time, Rule 26 separately permits correction of arithmetical, grammatical, clerical and similar minor errors on the orders of the Registrar. The Rules thus provide sufficient safeguards for genuine lapses. Equally, they expect the appellant to diligently pursue the appeal. Vigilance after filing is as important as filing itself [Re: 2026-VIL-41-GSTAT-GZB]

 

Common Portal: Notified for Service?

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has examined a foundational issue under the GST law: whether mere uploading of a notice or order on the GST portal constitutes valid service under section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act.

 

The Court analysed the statutory scheme beginning with section 169(1)(d), which permits service on the "common portal". It noticed that the expression "common portal" is defined in Section 2(26) with reference to section 146. Section 146 itself specifies certain purposes for which the common portal may be notified and further permits such other purposes as may be prescribed. The expression "prescribed" is in turn defined in section 2(87) to mean prescribed by the Rules. Examining Notifications No.04/2017-CT, No.09/2018-CT and No.69/2019-CT issued under section 146, the Court observed that while www.gst.gov.in had been notified for specified purposes, service of notices or orders was not one of the purposes so notified. In the absence of a notification prescribing the common portal for that purpose, the Court held that mere uploading of a show cause notice or order on the GST portal cannot be treated as service under section 169(1)(d). It accordingly concluded that uploading of notices and orders on the common portal is not an authorised mode of service under the Act.

 

The Court also noticed that there is no prominent indication on the dashboard regarding pending statutory proceedings and that a taxpayer is required to navigate through multiple tabs before reaching "Additional Notices and Orders". According to the Court, such an inconspicuous mode of communication cannot be regarded as effective statutory service, the object of an electronic compliance platform being to facilitate communication rather than create procedural traps. The Court observed that, in addition to notifying the common portal for effecting service of show cause notices, orders and other statutory communications, the respondents ought to introduce prominent dashboard alerts, mandatory pop-up notifications, OTP-based acknowledgement of important legal communications, automated SMS alerts and a dedicated dashboard section for statutory notices and orders. Only then, according to the Court, would the common portal become an instrument of effective communication.

 

The wider consequences of the ruling on the Writs filed before the Hon'ble Court, including the timelines prescribed thereunder, have not been discussed here for the sake of brevity.

 

In an earlier edition (Tax Vista Edn. 268), while discussing the Allahabad High Court's decision, the focus was on whether mere uploading on the portal amounted to valid service / communication. The Punjab & Haryana High Court has now added an antecedent question - whether the common portal itself stands notified for the purposes of section 169(1)(d). Presently, the Allahabad High Court judgment stands stayed and the issue is sub judice before the Supreme Court. This aspect regarding the statutory notification of the common portal may also require consideration while the larger issue of electronic service / communication comes up for final determination before the Supreme Court. It is also relevant to note that Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken a diametrically opposite view, holding that upload (on the Revenue's website) is only prescribed mode of communication of order/ notice on the basis of Rule 142 [refer:  2020-VIL-567-MP]

 

The controversy may also have to be examined in the backdrop of the retrospective amendment made through the Finance Act, 2022. Pursuant to the GST Council's recommendation, Notification No. 09/2018-Central Tax dated 23.01.2018 was retrospectively amended through Finance Act with effect from 22.06.2017 (prior to the notification date itself) to designate www.gst.gov.in as the common portal for all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017 (other than e-way bill and e-invoicing). The amendment appears to have been intended to address possible challenges to various online functionalities such as composition levy, input tax credit, refund, transitional provisions etc. Whether this retrospective expansion, by itself, answers questions relating to service of notices and orders under Chapter XVIII may still remain open. It may also require further examination because, even if the retrospective notification is regarded as bridging the gap by designating the common portal for all functions under the CGST Rules, 2017, Rule 142 itself does not employ the expression "on the common portal" but merely uses the expression "uploaded electronically".

 

These issues are likely to come up for further judicial consideration. Whether similar questions may arise in the context of communications through the GSTAT portal is perhaps a discussion for another day [Re: 2026-VIL-732-P&H]

 

[Read previous edition dated 20.07.2026]

 

(The views expressed are personal. The author can be reached for feedback or queries on v.k.vishwa@gmail.com)