The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Hyderabad, has held that the First Appellate Authority cannot condone a delay beyond the maximum period permitted under Section 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, merely by relying on High Court orders passed in writ jurisdiction. However, it declined to grant relief to the department because the authorities had already implemented the appellate order and restored the taxpayer’s GST registration.

The Bench of A. P. Ravi (Judicial Member) and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas (Technical Member) observed that the taxpayer had resumed business and continued filing GST returns on the strength of the restored registration. In these circumstances, the department’s appeal had become infructuous and was disposed of as not maintainable. 

Buy Now: 160+ GST E-Magazine September 2026

The dispute concerned Teqdatum Technologies Private Limited, whose GST registration was cancelled following its failure to furnish returns for a continuous period of six months during the financial year 2022–23.

According to the order, the taxpayer did not seek revocation within the prescribed period or submit a reply seeking such relief. The adjudicating authority consequently proceeded with the cancellation, giving it retrospective effect.

The company subsequently challenged the cancellation before the First Appellate Authority. Its appeal, however, was filed beyond both the ordinary limitation period and the additional period for which delay could be condoned under Section 107(4). 

The First Appellate Authority condoned the delay by relying on decisions of the Telangana High Court, including Southern Enterprises v. State of Telangana, Chenna Krishnama Charyulu Karampudi v. State of Telangana, and APICTO Limited v. Union of India.

The authority made the relief conditional upon payment of outstanding tax liabilities, accrued interest, penalties and applicable late fees.

The Tribunal recorded that the taxpayer subsequently discharged its tax liabilities and secured restoration of its registration. Its registration remained active, and it continued conducting business and filing GST returns. The departmental representative acknowledged this position, which was also corroborated by the GST portal records.

The department approached the Tribunal under Sections 112(3) and 112(4) of the CGST Act, challenging the First Appellate Authority’s jurisdiction to entertain the delayed appeal.

It argued that Section 107(1) prescribes three months for a taxpayer to appeal from the date of communication of the order. Section 107(4) permits condonation for a further month upon sufficient cause being shown.

The department maintained that the appellate authority could not extend this outer limit by relying on High Court decisions. It sought setting aside of the appellate order on the ground that the authority had assumed a jurisdiction the statute did not confer. The taxpayer neither filed cross-objections nor appeared before the Tribunal. 

The Tribunal agreed with the department on the limitation issue.

Following its earlier Common Order Nos. 04–19/COURT-II/HYD/2026 dated September 18, 2026, the Bench distinguished the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 from the limited jurisdiction of a statutory appellate authority.

It explained that the High Court decisions relied upon by the First Appellate Authority were based on the particular circumstances of those cases. They did not establish a general rule empowering the authority to condone delays beyond Section 107(4).

The Tribunal reiterated that the First Appellate Authority is a creature of statute and must operate within the limits of the enactment. Considerations of hardship, equity or substantial justice cannot independently authorise it to extend a limitation period beyond the statutory ceiling.

Accordingly, the Bench held that the authority had exceeded its jurisdiction in condoning the delay in the company’s appeal. 

Despite accepting the department’s legal objection, the Tribunal held that the subsequent implementation of the appellate order was decisive to the outcome.

The department had already restored the registration, and the company had continued business on that basis. The Bench applied its earlier reasoning that allowing such departmental appeals could expose restored registrations to cancellation again, including retrospectively, and jeopardise genuine transactions undertaken during the intervening period.

The Tribunal observed that permitting the department to attack an order it had itself implemented would, in the circumstances, be unfair and contrary to principles of estoppel and orderly administration.

It therefore concluded that no effective relief could be granted through the appeal. 

The ruling draws a distinction between the legality of the delay condonation and the practical relief available after implementation of the resulting order.

The Tribunal expressly held that the First Appellate Authority lacked power to condone the excessive delay. Nevertheless, because the department had restored the registration and the taxpayer had continued business in reliance on that restoration, the departmental appeal had become infructuous.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of as not maintainable, with no order as to costs. The decision does not recognise any general power in the First Appellate Authority to extend the limitation period beyond Section 107(4). 

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.

Read More: No Concealment Penalty When Search-Related Return Is Accepted Without Addition: Gujarat HC