The Rajasthan High Court has, in a series of writ petitions decided on the same day, condoned delays in filing appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and adjudicate the appeals on merits, holding that uploading of a show cause notice or order under the wrong tab on the GST portal — specifically the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab instead of the designated ‘Notices and Orders’ tab — does not constitute effective service on the taxpayer. The rulings, delivered by Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar on 01.09.2026 in a batch including D.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17381/2026 (M/s Baba Metals, FY 2021-22), 17269/2026 (M/s Shri Sai Auto Finance, FY 2018-19), and 17268/2026 (M/s Baba Metals, FY 2022-23), carry significant implications for a large number of taxpayers who have suffered ex parte orders or missed appeal deadlines on account of notices being placed under a non-designated tab on the common GST portal.

The factual pattern across the three cases was materially identical. In each case, the show cause notice and the consequent order-in-original were uploaded on the GST portal under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab rather than the designated ‘Notices and Orders’ tab. The petitioners contended that they had no effective knowledge of the proceedings and that the delay in filing appeals was neither deliberate nor wilful but arose entirely from procedural lapses on the part of the Department. In M/s Shri Sai Auto Finance, the petitioner came to know of the order only when its bank account was attached, and in M/s Baba Metals (FY 2022-23), the existence of the order came to light only through the Department’s reply to an anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioners.

The court’s reasoning proceeded on the footing that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107, where the delay arises from circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, non-adjudication on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. The Bench followed its own consistent line of Division Bench judgments in M/s M R Traders v. UOI [2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115], M/s Molana Construction Company [2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938], Man Singh Tanwar [D.B. CWP 14658/2024], and RPC PSIPL JV [D.B. CWP 7260/2025 and D.B. CWP 11794/2025], and further placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh [2026:PHHC099329:DB] (CWP No. 27139/2025), which had held, inter alia, that service of an SCN cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of uploading on the Common Portal unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.

In M/s Shri Sai Auto Finance, the Bench additionally noted that the fact that the impugned order had been passed as far back as 2024, yet no recovery steps were taken until May 2026, lent credence to the petitioner’s case that the order had been placed in the wrong tab which was subsequently merged with the ‘Notices and Orders’ tab. The Calcutta High Court, in identical circumstances, has also been setting aside orders and remanding matters where SCNs or orders were uploaded under the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab — as seen in The Jorehaut Group Limited (WPA 19461 of 2026, decided 10.09.2026) and Tahir Khan (WPA 9627 of 2024, decided 10.09.2026) before Justice Smita Das De. In each of the Rajasthan HC cases, the delay was condoned and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal on merits, provided it was filed within 30 days.

- 2026-juristway.com-1230-HC(Rajasthan)-GST; 1231; 1232; 1236; 2461-HC(Calcutta); 2462-HC(Calcutta)  |  High Court of Rajasthan & High Court of Calcutta  |  Multiple Writ Petitions  |  September 2026