Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Megacity Cement Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., challenged two orders: an appellate order dated 23.05.2023 under Section 107 of the WBGST/CGST Act dismissing their appeal against a Section 74 order dated 10.03.2022 as time-barred, and a separate Section 74 order dated 31.01.2025. The petitioners contended that only a summary of the original order was uploaded on 25.08.2022, and since their appeal was filed on 28.08.2022 – within three days of that upload – it was within time; the appellate authority, however, disbelieved this without any inquiry, relying on a general observation that portal communications are reflected 'in no time'. The petitioners approached the Calcutta High Court, which entertained the writ noting the GST Appellate Tribunal was not yet functional. Separately, regarding the second order dated 31.01.2025, the Department itself informed the Court that it had been inadvertently issued and had already been nullified by a rectification order dated 14.11.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an appellate authority can reject a taxpayer's claim about the actual date of portal-upload of an order without any inquiry or supporting material, based merely on a general observation about instantaneous portal reflection.
  2. What becomes of a challenge to a demand order that the Department itself concedes was inadvertently issued and subsequently nullified by its own rectification order.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The petitioners could not have known of the order dated 10.03.2022 before 25.08.2022, since only the summary order was uploaded on the portal on that date and the full order was never separately supplied.
  • The appeal filed on 28.08.2022, within three days of the upload, was therefore within limitation and ought not to have been rejected.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The appellate authority found the petitioners' claim of receiving the order only on 25.08.2022 unbelievable, since they had not produced documentary support.
  • Regarding the order dated 31.01.2025, the Department candidly informed the Court that it was inadvertently issued and had been nullified by a rectification order dated 14.11.2025.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court held that the appellate authority's finding – that portal communications are reflected 'in no time' – was a general observation unsupported by any inquiry into when the specific order was actually uploaded, and such information lies solely with the uploading authority.
  • Since it would be practically impossible for the taxpayer to independently prove the date of upload, the appellate authority ought to have tested the veracity of the taxpayer's claim rather than reject it on a general assumption.
  • The appellate order dated 23.05.2023 was set aside and remanded for the appellate authority to first verify whether the order was actually uploaded on 25.08.2022, and if so, treat the appeal as within time, also considering the separate grievance that only the summary (and not the detailed) order was supplied.
  • As regards the order dated 31.01.2025, the Court took on record the Department's own rectification order dated 14.11.2025 nullifying that demand, and disposed of the writ petition with these observations.

Important Clarification

  • An appellate authority cannot reject a taxpayer's factual claim about the date of portal-upload of an order merely by asserting that portal uploads reflect 'in no time'; since only the department controls upload timestamps, the authority must make a specific inquiry and record material before disbelieving the taxpayer.
  • Where the Department itself rectifies and nullifies a demand order before the writ is decided, courts will simply record this fact rather than adjudicate a now-academic challenge to that order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – appeal to the Appellate Authority and computation of limitation.

Decision – In Favour of

Disposed of in favour of the Assessee on the limitation question – remanded for a fact-based inquiry into the upload date – and the connected demand stood already nullified by the Department's own rectification.

Case Details

High Court at Calcutta; WPA 20331 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Justice Om Narayan Rai; Order dated 19.11.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.