The Madras High Court has declined to interfere with the rejection of two GST appeals filed beyond the prescribed limitation period, holding that there was no infirmity in the appellate orders that treated the appeals as time-barred.
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy considered the question of when limitation should be computed and examined the language of Section 107 alongside decisions of the Supreme Court, including M.P. Steel Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., and The Property Company (P) Ltd. v. Rohinten Daddy Mazda.
The petitions challenged proceedings issued in FORM GST APL-02, dated July 1, 2026 and June 30, 2026, respectively. The petitioner sought quashing of the appellate orders on grounds including illegality, lack of jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The underlying GST appeals had been filed against original orders but were rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of delay.
The petitioner argued that the original orders themselves contained a significant contradiction. An order dated December 31, 2025 proceeded on the basis that the petitioner had made taxable supplies amounting to ₹9,12,200, whereas another order dated December 20, 2025 proceeded on the basis that the same amount represented exempt supplies.
The petitioner relied on earlier judicial decisions to contend that, in such circumstances, the limitation period for filing an appeal should be calculated from the date on which the rectification order was communicated, rather than from the date of communication of the original order.
The central legal issue before the Court was the computation of the limitation period under Section 107(1) of the applicable GST enactments.
Section 107(1) permits an appeal against a decision or order within three months from the date of communication of the order. The petitioner sought to rely on the rectification proceedings to contend that the limitation clock should effectively be linked to the later rectification order.
The department however, maintained that the limitation period had to be reckoned from the date on which the order under challenge was communicated.
The Madras High Court examined an earlier batch of cases led by E2E Supply Chain Solutions Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, decided on November 29, 2024.
The Court noted that the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be applied only when the party concerned satisfies the statutory requirements of that provision.
Importantly, the Court also recorded that its earlier decision in SPK and Co. v. State Tax Officer had not engaged with the language of Section 107 or considered the relevant Supreme Court principles and therefore did not qualify as good law.
The High Court found that the appeals in both cases had been filed beyond the condonable period.
This finding was significant because the petitioner sought to use the rectification proceedings as the basis for challenging the computation of limitation.
The Court ultimately held that there was no infirmity in the appellate orders rejecting the appeals as time-barred.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
