The Order Was in the "Additional Notices" Tab —why your GST appeal clock may not have started

The sequence is familiar to anyone who handles GST disputes in Uttar Pradesh. A business files its returns every month and pays its tax. It checks the portal's "View Notices and Orders" section and finds nothing pending. Then, without warning, its bank account is attached or a recovery notice arrives. When the portal is searched more carefully, the show-cause notice, the reminders and an ex parte demand order turn up, all in a different section, "Additional Notices and Orders". By then the three months for an appeal appear to have passed.

Two High Court decisions this year deal directly with this situation. The more recent, from the Bombay High Court on 12 October 2026, answers the question that matters most once a deadline seems to have been missed: when does the time to appeal actually begin to run?

The statute counts from communication, not upload

Section 107(1) of the CGST Act allows a person aggrieved by an adjudication order to appeal within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to such person. Under Section 107(4), the Appellate Authority may allow a further period of one month if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The statute does not say that time runs from the date the order is generated or uploaded.

Section 169(1) lists the methods by which a notice or order may be served. These include direct tender, registered or speed post, e-mail to the registered address, and, under clause (d), "making it available on the common portal". Portal upload is a lawful mode. The dispute in these cases is narrower. It is whether an order placed in a section of the portal where orders were not required to be placed has been communicated in the sense that Section 107 requires.

Bombay High Court, 12 October 2026: an appeal revived

In Elster Metering Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No. 12273 of 2026, decided by a Division Bench of Justices M.S. Karnik and Sandesh D. Patil, an adjudication order dated 29 August 2024 under Section 73(9) had been uploaded under "Additional Notices and Orders" and not under "View Notices and Orders". The company said it learned of the order only in February 2025. It filed an appeal on 25 February 2025 with an application for condonation of delay. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred on 24 April 2025. Its reasoning was that the company filed returns and paid tax on the same portal, so it must have been aware of the portal.

The High Court rejected that reasoning. It held that the Appellate Authority had confused the filing of periodic returns with knowledge of an order placed in a tab where orders were not required to be placed. It added that the authority had relied on "service in the abstract rather than upon communication", and communication is what Section 107(1) requires. Relying on Supreme Court authority, the Court treated communication as giving the affected person enough knowledge to make an effective representation. It noted that although the Appellate Authority may lack power to extend limitation, the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not curtailed by that limit. The Court condoned the delay, revived the appeal and directed that it be decided on merits after a personal hearing. It did not decide the merits of the demand.

A limitation period protects finality. It does not let an order that was never communicated become final.

The Lucknow Bench line: quashing the demand and the recovery

The Allahabad High Court has dealt with this issue for longer. In Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024, decided on 22 July 2024, the State's counsel told the Court that an assessing officer has no option on the portal to choose the tab in which an order appears to the taxpayer. Any fix would have to come from the GST Network. The Court gave the taxpayer the benefit of the doubt and directed a fresh notice.

The Lucknow Bench followed that decision in M/s Pradhan Trading Company v. State of U.P., Writ Tax No. 963 of 2026, decided on 28 July 2026 by Justices Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai. The notices under Section 73 had been uploaded under "Additional Notices and Orders". The department did not dispute this. The Court quashed the adjudication order of 13 February 2025, the summary order in Form GST DRC-07, and a notice for attachment and sale in Form GST DRC-16 dated 17 November 2025. It permitted a fresh notice giving at least fifteen days' clear time. It also directed that recovery of the penalty would depend on the final order passed in the fresh proceedings.

Both decisions connect with Section 75(4), which requires an opportunity of hearing wherever an adverse decision is contemplated. A notice the taxpayer could not reasonably find leaves that hearing without practical effect.

Where the argument does not succeed

This is not an automatic escape from every demand. The Delhi High Court has declined the tab argument in at least one case. In that case the notice was issued after the portal was changed following 16 January 2024, and the petitioner's own screenshot showed that the "Additional Notices" tab was visible to it. The facts and dates matter. A taxpayer who saw the notice and did nothing is in a very different position from one who could not reasonably have found it. Courts also tend to send the matter back for fresh adjudication rather than cancel the liability outright. The demand is examined again, this time with a hearing.

What to do if a demand surfaces this way

Two habits reduce the risk in the first place. Check both tabs whenever you log in, and keep the registered e-mail address and authorised signatory details current. Neither habit affects a demand that is already pending, but both reduce the chance of the next one going unnoticed.