The Gujarat High Court ruled that delays in filing GST appeals cannot be condoned beyond the statutory time limit, even under Article 226 writ jurisdiction. Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi dismissed the petition, citing excessive and impermissible delay.
GUJARAT: The Gujarat High Court has ruled that courts cannot excuse delays in filing GST appeals beyond the statutory period, even under their writ jurisdiction as per Article 226 of the Constitution.
A writ petition from a partnership firm was rejected by Justices A.S. Supehia and Pranav Trivedi, who observed that the delay exceeded the legally permissible limit.
On March 21, 2024, a demand order was issued under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act, requiring the firm to pay Rs 1,98,720 in tax, along with interest and penalties, bringing the total demand to Rs 5,03,768.
The applicant claimed that notices for personal hearings were posted on the GST portal with scheduled dates in September 2025. However, no separate notifications were sent by email or post, which led to their absence from the hearings.
The appellate authority rejected the firm’s appeal, stating it lacked the authority to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The High Court noted that the appeal was submitted under Section 107 of the GST Act with a delay of 284 days.
In addressing the delay, the applicant reasoned that limited computer knowledge and reliance on a part-time accountant whose duties were focused solely on maintaining accounts and filing GST returns left them unaware of the tax determination order (DRC-07) that had been issued.
The Court found this explanation unconvincing, affirming that in today’s digital age, it is difficult to believe that the taxpayer and their accountant were unaware of how to check orders on the GST portal.
Referring to Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the bench noted that an appeal must be submitted within 90 days, with an allowable additional condonable period of 30 days if justifiable reasons are provided. Beyond this extended period, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can grant any further extensions.
The Court emphasized that tax statutes operate under strict deadlines, and any relaxation of these timelines could adversely affect revenue administration. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., which stated that High Courts should not disregard legislative intent by accepting cases submitted beyond the maximum limitation period.
The bench reiterated that while writ jurisdiction is broad, it must not be misused in relation to statutory limitations. It referenced previous judgments that affirm courts’ obligations to honor specified limitation periods established by special statutes, citing public policy concerns.
The High Court remarked that taxpayers must remain vigilant regarding proceedings and routinely check the orders posted on the GST portal. Even with a valid explanation, the Court maintained it could not condone delays beyond a total of 120 days, as that would undermine legislative intentions.
Since the applicant had already pursued the statutory remedy of appeal, the Court declined to investigate the legality of the original demand order, stating that the underlying dispute involved factual issues rather than jurisdictional errors or breaches of natural justice.
In conclusion, the Court determined that it lacks the authority to excuse the delay and thus dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the right to appeal is a statutory creation that must be exercised within the specified timelines.
CASE TITLE: M/S. Agrawal Enterprises vs. State of Gujarat
READ ATTACHMENTS: