Rajasthan GST Act | HC Calls For 'Purposive' Interpretation Of S.107, Asks Why Assessment Orders Cannot Be Sent On Assessee's Email

The Rajasthan High Court has questioned why the tax department can send attachment orders via email, but not assessment orders, to ward off any communication gap or confusion about the date of communication.

The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, State Tax, that had rejected an appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 107(1) of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017.

The division bench of Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Sangeeta Sharma held,

“The expression “communication to such person” used under section 107(1) of the Act of 2017 has its own significance. Passing of the order and uploading the same on the common portal, in the extant case cannot be read literally. A purposive interpretation needs to be given to a provision, when it relates to valuable statutory right of an assessee, more particularly, when upper cap of only 30 days for condonation of delay has been provided under sub-section (4) of section 107 of the Act of 2017.”

The petitioner's registration on the tax portal was done by her consultant, who used his own email and mobile number. A dispute arose between them, and he refused to provide the login credentials to her. As a result, she requested the Commercial Taxes Officer to change the credentials.

Before this request was accepted, the Assessing Officer issued an order and attached her bank account. Even though the assessment order was uploaded on the common portal a long time back, she came to know about it only when the order of attachment was issued.

Against this, an appeal was filed under Section 107 of the Act, which was rejected on the ground that the limitation period was 90 days from the date of communication of the order, which was uploaded on the common portal.

It was the case of the petitioner that the relevant date for calculating the limitation period should be the one on which the order is communicated to the assessee, which, in the present case, was not until the order of attachment was passed or when the petitioner's request to change login credentials was allowed and she was able to access the portal.

After hearing the contentions, the Court highlighted that since the petitioner had requested a change in her login credentials, it was clear that she was not able to access the common portal. Since her request to change the credentials was accepted by the department late, she could not be accused of delay.

“The period of limitation cannot be reckoned from any date prior to 17.03.2025, when her request for change of mobile number and e-mail ID was accepted and she was able to access the common portal or at the worst from 05.03.2025, when she received intimation of attachment of her bank account.”

Accordingly, the petition was allowed, setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority.

Title: M/s Sahil Steels v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 313

Click Here To Read/Download Order