H.K. Impex v. Commissioner of DGST
In favour of the assessee
The ruling in brief
H.K. Impex filed W.P.(C) No. 13924 of 2026 before the Delhi High Court (21 September 2026) when its appeal was rejected as time-barred based on upload of the demand order on the GST Common Portal alone. Under Sections 107 and 169 CGST, mere portal upload without separate service or acknowledgement does not start the appeal limitation clock. The Court allowed filing within four weeks. Outcome favoured the assessee. Taxpayers should document how orders were received; departments should follow formal service norms to fix limitation. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
For information only — not legal advice. Read the full judgment and applicable law before relying on this summary.
Provisions considered
- CGST S.107 — Appeals to the Appellate Authority.
- CGST S.169 — Service of notice in certain circumstances, including portal upload.
Source documents
Similar rulings
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Arun Kumar Dutta v. State of West Bengal
Arun Kumar Dutta’s appeal before the Calcutta High Court (WPA No. 6436 of 2026, 8 September 2026) concerned GST adjudication where the SCN and order appeared only under the portal’s “Additional Notice and Orders” tab without separate intimation under Section 169 CGST. The appellate authority dismissed the Section 107 appeal on limitation without hearing merits. The Court held this procedural lapse violated natural justice, quashed the appellate order, and directed admission and decision on merits. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand. Relying solely on portal uploads without clear communication can invalidate limitation-based dismissals. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Kulik Plywood (P.) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
Kulik Plywood Pvt. Ltd. succeeded before the Calcutta High Court (WPA No. 7650 of 2026, 13 August 2026) where the SCN was visible only under “Additional Notice and Orders” on the GST portal without separate intimation under Section 169 CGST, preventing timely response. The Section 107 appeal was dismissed on limitation without merit review. The Court quashed the appellate order and directed admission and merits hearing. Outcome favoured the assessee with remand, consistent with Dutta on portal-only communication and natural justice. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the assessee; matter remanded
Raju Ghosh v. State of WB
The Calcutta High Court (WPA 6129 of 2026, 16 July 2026) intervened where Raju Ghosh received a Form GST DRC-01 show cause notice for tax periods March 2021 to April 2022 only under the portal tab “Additional notice and orders,” leaving him unable to respond. He learned of the adjudication order dated 3 July 2025 after a recovery email in November 2025, by which time substantial amounts had already been debited from his electronic credit ledger. His appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/WBGST Acts was dismissed on 28 January 2026 solely for limitation, without merits. The court held that electronic placement in a non-standard tab amounted to defective service and denial of natural justice under the service framework (including Section 169). The explained delay warranted condonation. The appellate order was quashed with direction to decide the appeal on merits by 30 September 2026; pre-deposit already made sufficed and recovery was not to be influenced by the order. Outcome: in favour of the assessee; matter remanded.
In favour of the assessee
Aakash Gupta v. Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal
Multiple writ petitioners including Aakash Gupta approached the Delhi High Court (W.P.(C) Nos. 12808 et seq., 14 September 2026) because GSTAT insisted on pre-deposit for appeals arising from penalty-only show cause notices issued before the amended pre-deposit requirement. Sections 107 and 112 CGST govern first and second appeals; the right of appeal vests when the SCN is issued. The Court held the new pre-deposit condition could not apply retrospectively to penalty-only cases from pre-amendment SCNs, and directed GSTAT to entertain those appeals without pre-deposit. Outcome favoured assessees. Penalty appeals tied to older SCNs should be filed under the law as it stood when the notice was issued. This note is published for Chartered Universe GST case-law research and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full order, confirm the decision date and citation, and assess whether later statutory changes affect reliance before advising clients or filing appeals.
In favour of the assessee
VA Tech Wabag Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Salt Lake
In W.P.A. No. 14369 of 2024 (Calcutta High Court, 11 September 2026, Smita Das De, J.), VA Tech Wabag Ltd. challenged dismissal of its appeal against an adjudication order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Revenue, Salt Lake circle, under the CGST Act. The appeal was delayed because the business manager handling GST filings was incapacitated by serious illness; mandatory pre-deposit under Section 107 had nonetheless been remitted. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely for lateness without engaging with the illness explanation. The court held such approach hyper-technical where statutory pre-deposit signified bona fide intent to pursue remedies. Sufficient cause for condonation was found; the appeal was restored for merit-based adjudication. The decision mirrors sibling batch matters and reinforces that appellate authorities must apply condonation principles rather than formulaic dismissal. Outcome: in favour of the assessee. Editorial summary for Chartered Universe readers; not legal advice.