Safiya Malik

The High Court of Gujarat Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi dismissed a writ petition by an assessee challenging an appellate order that rejected its GST appeal as time-barred. The assessee had approached the Commissioner (Appeals) against an adjudication order dated 24 April 2024, but the appeal uploaded on 5 October 2024 was held not maintainable as it crossed the maximum 120-day period, including the condonable time. The Bench declined to quash the appellate order or direct that the belated appeal be entertained, holding that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to extend the statutory limitation. It recorded that the delay was sought to be justified by a “lame excuse”, including the accountant’s illness and business closure.

The petition arose from a challenge to an Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2025 and an Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2024 passed under the Goods and Services Tax framework. The petitioner assailed the appellate authority’s refusal to entertain the statutory appeal on the ground of limitation. It was contended that the appeal against the Order-in-Original had been filed with a delay of six days beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days prescribed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Grant ‘No Arrest’ Protection Or Fix Investigation Deadlines While Declining To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

The petitioner submitted that the appeal memorandum had been uploaded online on 05.10.2024 and sought condonation of delay by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reliance was placed on a Full Bench decision to contend that the High Court could condone such delay. It was further asserted that substantial amounts towards GST liability had already been paid, including deposits made at the time of filing the appeal, and that the remaining amount was undertaken to be paid.

The respondents opposed the petition, contending that neither the appellate authority nor the High Court had the power to condone delay beyond the outer statutory limit. Reliance was placed on binding precedent of the Supreme Court dealing with statutory limitation under fiscal enactments.

The Court recorded that “it is not in dispute that the petitioner has filed an appeal challenging the Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2024 belatedly over and above the period of limitation of 120 days.” The Bench examined Section 107 of the GST Act and observed that “the maximum period of presenting the appeal against the Order-in-Original was 3 months and thereafter… within a further period of one month.”

On the scope of the appellate authority’s powers, the Court stated that “the Appellate Authority has precisely held that it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation of 120 days.” The central issue considered was whether the High Court could, in writ jurisdiction, direct acceptance of an appeal beyond this statutory limit.

Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Court noted that “the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution are wide, but certainly not wider than the plenary powers bestowed on the Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.” It recorded that statutory limitation provisions reflect legislative intent and “cannot be rendered otiose.”

The Bench further observed that “even if the writ petition is filed after the expiry of maximum prescribed period of limitation… the High Court cannot disregard the statutory period for redressal of the grievance and entertain the writ petition of such a party as a matter of course.” On the petitioner’s explanation for delay, the Court recorded that it was “not inclined to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority… in wake of the lame excuse given by the petitioner.”

Regarding the challenge to the Order-in-Original, the Court stated that “once the petitioner has availed its alternative efficacious remedy of filing the appeal, this Court cannot call back and examine the Order-in-Original.”

Also Read: Inconclusive Lab Report Cannot Support Distillate Oil Reclassification As Diesel: Gujarat High Court Orders Release Of Imported Cargo Seized For Alleged Non-Compliance With Distillate Criteria

The Court concluded by holding that “this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India condoning the delay of six days” and “the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhishek M. Mehta, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Maunil Yajnik, Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Parth Mehta, Advocate for Mr. Ankit Shah, Senior Standing Counsel

Case Title: Harsh Deepk Shah v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: GUJHC:74185-DB
Case Number: Special Civil Application No. 17382 of 2025
Bench: Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi