M.S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.

1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the Order dt.23.12.2025 in Appeal Case No.16/Ch-AMB/2024 of the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appellate Authority) under the Tripura State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 [“TSGST Act”, for short] rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner by refusing to condone the delay in filing it.

2. On 30.03.2021, an order was passed by the Superintendent of State Tax, Charge-Ambassa, Dhalai, Tripura, but the order was only uploaded on the Common Portal, but was not communicated by other modes mentioned in Section 169 of the TSGST Act.

3. Petitioner presented the appeal before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax on 12.03.2024 with a delay of 2 years 9 months 1 day.

4. Petitioner sought condonation of delay in filing the said appeal on the ground that the appeal should have been filed within 90 days from the date of communication of the order with an additional 30 days, which could have been condoned; that thus calculated, the last date for filing of the appeal was 07.06.2021; but since the petitioner did not receive copy of the order dt.08.02.2021, and he only came to know about it when he applied for a tax clearance certificate in the first week of February, 2024, the said delay of 2 years 9 months and 1 day occurred ,which was liable to be condoned.

5. The Additional Commissioner of State Tax however declined to condone the delay stating that the petitioner was not performing production since 29.04.2016 although GSTIN had been kept alive; that he did not communicate the same in his reply to the respondents within time; and that the appeal was filed with a substantial delay of 2 years 9 months and 1 day from the date of issue of the impugned order, which is beyond the time mandated under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the TSGST Act; and that he had no power to condone the delay under Section 107(4) which permits him to condone only maximum of seven months period.

6. Petitioner contends that the reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appeal are genuine and the respondents should have considered the period of delay only from the date of knowledge of the impugned order to the petitioner, and they have acted illegally in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

7. It is further contended that mere uploading of an order issued by the Superintendent of Taxes on the GST portal, would not constitute sufficient service or valid communication crucial for starting the limitation period, and the respondents cannot just rely upon the upload of the said order on the portal to deprive the petitioner of the opportunity of filing an appeal challenging the order passed by the Superintendent of Taxes.

8. It is further contended that without proof of delivery like an acknowledgment and the ability to track, when a document was assessed, mere uploading would not be sufficient service.

9. According to the petitioner, if he was unaware of the uploaded order, he cannot respond and there would be a violation of principles of natural justice.

10. Petitioner contends that the onus is on the respondents to ensure that notices and orders are properly served, and not merely uploaded on the portal, and that the respondents ought to ensure that the orders are sent through authorized means that guarantee their receipt.

11. The respondents refute the said contentions, and contend that uploading of the notices/orders on the common GST portal as per Section 169(1)(d) of the TSGST Act is valid, and in the instant case the final adjudication order against the petitioner was passed under Section 74 of the TSGST Act on 08.02.2021, and it was uploaded onto the portal on the same day i.e. on 08.02.2021. So the delay in filing the appeal under section 107 cannot be condoned.

12. In this regard, the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court in Sharp Tanks and Structurals Private Limited v. The Deputy Commissioner (GST) (Appeals) & Another1 has considered Section 169 and other provisions in the Act and the Rules, and judgments of other High Courts on the aspect.

The learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court held that Section 169 of the Act no doubt prescribes various modes of service and gives the GST Department a choice and an option to choose any of the modes of service which itself is a power conferred on the said Department.

He held that whenever administrative power is conferred by a statute, the presumption is that it would be exercised in a manner which is fair in all circumstances, and that the standards of fairness are not immutable and where an authority possesses the power, it must be reasonably exercised.

He held that an interpretation, which upon application of the provisions at the ground reality would frustrate the very law, should not be accepted against the common sense view which will further such application.

He relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in National Highways Authority of India & Others v. Madhukar Kumar & Others ((2022) 14 SCC 661), Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (SOUTHCO) & Another v. Sri Seetaram Rice Mill ((2012) 2 SCC 108) and M/s Techno Prints v. Chhattisgarh Textbook Corporation (2025 INSC 236) to take the above view.

He further held that courts cannot ignore the fact that there is a digital divide, and they must take judicial notice also of the fact that when it comes to small businesses, who constitute the overwhelming majority, the returns are usually filed by the consultants hired by the assesses who charge nominal fee to render services.

The learned Judge held that when Section 169(1) of the Act prescribes alternative modes of service, and the said provision is still holding the field, it is not for the Court to declare that uploading in the portal is not service, but that in the particular facts of the case, the authority was obliged to have resorted to other modes of service apart from uploading the notice/order in the portal.

He held that the Writ Court, applying the ratio that power must be exercised reasonably, can always conclude that on the facts of that particular case, it is required to effect service through one or the other modes also.

The learned judge held in that case since the impugned order had only been uploaded in the portal, and not communicated to the assessee, the limitation has not started running for the writ petitioner, and it would run only from the date the order was downloaded from the portal, and it would not constitute communication of the orders to the writ petitioner.

13. The Madras High Court in Abitha Timber Traders v. Commr. ((2025) 145 GSTR 507: 2024 SCC Online Mad 9037) set aside an order passed by the assessing officer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 on the ground that notices in Form ASMT-10, DRC-01A and DRC-01 were only uploaded on the GST portal without serving the same on the petitioner by any of the other modes of service mentioned in Section 169, because the assessee was a timber trader and uneducated person and he was not acquainted with the following of notices on the common portal. It set aside the assessment order and remitted the order back to the assessing officer to pass fresh order.

14. In Leto v. STO ((2025) 145 GSTR 146 (Mad) : 2025 SCC online Mad 5425), an assessment order under the Central Goods and Services Act, 2017 was challenged on the ground that the show cause notice was not physically served and was uploaded only on the common portal. The Madras High Court held that though service by uploading on the portal was sufficient service, the officer should have applied mind and explored other modes of service mentioned in Section 169, when no response was received. It therefore set aside the order of the assessing officer.

15. Similar view was taken in Preethi Engineering Enterprises Unit-II v. STO 9(2026) 154 GSTR 439 (Mad) : 2026 SCC Online 18859) and Udumalpet Sarvodya Sangham v. Authority under Shop and Establishment Act ((2026) 154 GSTR 402 (Mad)).

16. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Raj International v. Commissioner (CGST) ((2026) 154 GSTR 267 (Del) (DB) : 2025 SCC Online Del 2707) held that the GST Department shall endeavor to ensure that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, assessees be served through common GST portal and also through personal email/speed post and mobile phone number.

17. The learned Senior Government Advocate has cited M/s Bambino Agro Industries Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh & another (WRIT TAX No.2707/2025 dt.19.12.2025) to contend that validity of Section 169 of the TSGST Act has been upheld by the Allahabad High Court. There was no challenge to the said provision of law in the said case at all. Individual adjudication orders passed were challenged before the High Court of Allahabad. Though the Division bench in the said case held that service of show cause notice and orders under the State/Central GST Acts by making such documents available on the Common Portal or by making dispatch through electronic mode is permissible in law and therefore a valid procedure, it specifically held that the deeming fiction of law leading to constructive service contained in sub-section (2) of Section 169 is not available for the mode of service indicated in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 169. According to the said Court, it is available only with respect of service effected through modes specified in clauses (a), (b), (e) and (f) (where applicable) of Section 169 (1).

18. The view taken by the Madras High Court in the above judgments particularly in M/s Sharp Tanks (1 Supra) appeals to us and we respectfully follow the same.

19. Even in the instant case, according to the respondents, the petitioner had not been producing or manufacturing goods since 29.04.2016.

20. So, for that reason, it was necessary on the part of the respondents to also communicate the order of the Superintendent of Taxes by one of other modes indicated in Section 169(1) such as email, speed post or registered post, and that would be a valid exercise of the power conferred on the respondents under Section 169 of the TSGST Act, since the choice to adopt these modes is also available with the respondents.

21. The uploading of the order of the respondent No.4 on the common portal does not result in constructive notice of the same to the petitioner. So the limitation does not start to run for filing of the appeal from the date of the said order. The contrary view taken by the Appellate authority cannot therefore be sustained.

22. Therefore the reasons assigned by the petitioner for not being able to file the appeal within the time prescribed in Section 107 of the TSGST Act,2017 have to be accepted as “sufficient cause” for condonation of the same and the time for filing of the appeal has to be counted from the date the petitioner got knowledge of the order passed by the Superintendent of State Tax (respondent No.4) i.e., in first week of February 2024 and consequently the appeal presented by him on 12.3.2024 has to be held as having been filed within time.

23. In this view of the matter, the order dt.23.12.2025 in Appeal Case No.16/Ch-AMB/2024 of the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appellate Authority) is set aside; the said Appeal under Section 107 of TSGST Act, 2017 filed by petitioner is restored to the file of the said appellate authority; the delay in filing the said appeal under Section 107 of TSGST Act, 2017 is condoned; and the said Appellate Authority is directed to hear and decide the Appeal on merits by following principles of natural justice within 3(three) months and communicate his order to the petitioner by modes other than uploading on the portal.

24. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.