The Calcutta High Court, in M.M. Motors & Anr. v. Senior Joint Commissioner of Revenue, Berhampore Circle, WBGST & Ors. (Judgment dated 13 July 2026), examined an important question concerning limitation under Section 73 of the GST law. The dispute centred on whether an adjudication order digitally signed within the statutory limitation period but uploaded on the GST portal on the following day could be treated as time-barred.
The petitioners challenged the validity of an order passed under Section 73 for the tax period 2018-19. Although the adjudication order was digitally signed on 30 April 2024, which was the last date of the extended limitation period, the summary in Form GST DRC-07 was uploaded on 1 May 2024. The petitioners contended that the order was not validly issued within limitation because it was communicated after the expiry of the prescribed period.
The High Court analysed the statutory framework under Sections 73 and 169 of the CGST/WBGST Acts along with Rule 142 of the GST Rules. It drew a clear distinction between the concepts of issuance and service of an order. The Court observed that Section 73 prescribes the limitation for issuing an adjudication order, whereas Section 169 separately governs the manner in which notices and orders are served upon taxpayers. Uploading an order on the GST portal is only one of the recognised modes of service and does not determine the date of issuance.
The Court further held that the adjudicatory function is completed when the proper officer validly issues the order within the prescribed period. Communication or service of that order may occur subsequently in accordance with the statutory modes provided under Section 169. Therefore, an order digitally signed and issued within limitation does not become invalid merely because the GST portal reflects its upload on the following day.
The judgment also distinguished several Income-tax decisions dealing with reassessment notices, observing that the GST legislation adopts a different statutory framework. The Court emphasised that the expressions “issue” and “service” have been deliberately used separately under the GST Act and cannot be treated as interchangeable. Consequently, principles evolved under other taxing statutes cannot automatically be imported while interpreting the GST provisions.
Accordingly, the Calcutta High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the adjudication order, holding that compliance with the limitation prescribed under Section 73 is satisfied once the order is issued within the statutory period, even though its service or portal upload takes place thereafter.
Why This Judgment is Important
This decision provides significant clarity on GST adjudication proceedings by distinguishing between the issuance of an order and its service. The ruling is particularly relevant for disputes involving limitation under Section 73, portal uploads of DRC-07, electronic communication of orders, and procedural challenges based on delayed availability of orders on the GST portal. It serves as an important precedent for tax authorities, businesses, Chartered Accountants, advocates and GST practitioners dealing with adjudication timelines.
