GST Appeal Filed Beyond Statutory Limitation Period Cannot Be Condoned: Gujarat High Court

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a Goods and Services Tax (GST) appeal against a demand order on the ground of limitation, clarifying that a High Court cannot condone delay in filing an appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed by the statute.

The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed an appeal by M/S. Agarwal Enterprises and cautioned that taxpayers are required to remain vigilant and regularly verify orders uploaded on the GST portal.

The Bench stated:

“We clarify that even if the appellant had a valid reason and sufficient cause explaining the delay, this Court cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days. The tax payers are supposed to remain vigilant of all the proceedings and have to timely verify the orders on the portal. The taxing statutes operate in very strict time frame, and any relaxation or easing of limitation period will have cascading effect on the functioning of the revenue.”

The petitioner, a partnership firm, had challenged a demand order issued under the GST law raising a total demand of Rs. 5.03 lakh, including tax, interest, and penalty 284 days after the date of the original demand order. Its appeal before the appellate authority had been rejected solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the permissible period.

Before the High Court, the firm contended that it became aware of the demand belatedly and attributed the delay to lack of computer knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant.

The Court rejected these submissions, noting that Section 107 of the GST Act permits an appeal within 90 days, with a further discretionary extension of 30 days upon showing sufficient cause. Once the aggregate period of 120 days is exhausted, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can extend the limitation.

Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd, the Bench reiterated that statutory timelines are mandatory and cannot be diluted by invoking writ jurisdiction once the maximum condonable period has expired. Otherwise, it could have a cascading effect on revenue collection

The Court also held that the petitioner cannot seek re-examination of the original demand order through a writ petition after availing the statutory remedy of appeal.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

For the Petitioner: AS Asthavadi

For the Respondent: Tanushree Shrimal