The All India Federation of Tax Practitioners (AIFTP) has urged the Government and the GST Council to introduce a one-time amnesty scheme for condonation of delay in filing first appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, arguing that genuine taxpayers should not lose their right to merits-based adjudication merely because of procedural delays.
The representation, dated August 7, 2026, has been addressed to the Union Finance Minister, GST Council Secretariat, CBIC Chairperson and President of the Principal Bench of the GST Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT).
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
AIFTP Calls for One-Time Amnesty for Delayed First Appeals
The AIFTP, a national organisation representing tax practitioners, Chartered Accountants and Advocates, has proposed a mechanism under which cases where the first appeal before the Appellate Authority was dismissed solely on limitation could be restored and adjudicated on merits.
The Federation stated that the objective is to ensure that GSTAT is able to decide substantive tax disputes rather than being burdened with litigation arising from procedural dismissal of first appeals. According to the representation, the proposed measure would allow genuine disputes involving tax liability to receive appellate consideration despite delays that may have resulted from bona fide or unavoidable circumstances.
Section 107 Limits First Appeal to Three Months
Under Section 107 of the CGST Act, a person aggrieved by an adjudication order is required to file an appeal before the First Appellate Authority within three months from the date of communication of the order.
The AIFTP points out that the statutory framework permits condonation of delay only for a further period of one month, provided sufficient cause is shown. Once this extended period expires, the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain the delayed appeal.
The Federation contends that this rigid limitation framework has resulted in several matters being dismissed without examination of the underlying tax dispute. Such disputes may involve issues such as jurisdictional errors, breach of natural justice, incorrect interpretation of law or deficiencies in evidence.
“Substantive Justice Should Prevail Over Technical Limitation”
The central argument advanced by AIFTP is that while limitation provisions are necessary to ensure certainty and finality, procedural limitation should not permanently prevent genuine tax disputes from being examined on merits.
The representation states that when an appeal is dismissed exclusively because of delay, the substantive controversy remains unresolved. This, according to the Federation, can shift the focus of tax litigation away from the correctness of the tax demand towards procedural questions concerning limitation.
AIFTP therefore emphasised the need to strike a balance between procedural discipline and substantive justice.
Concern Over GSTAT Being Burdened With Limitation Disputes
The Federation has particularly highlighted the potential impact of the issue on the functioning of GSTAT.
With GSTAT becoming operational, a significant category of litigation could arise from orders of First Appellate Authorities dismissing appeals as time-barred. In such matters, GSTAT may be required to consider whether the statutory limitation provisions were correctly applied instead of examining the substantive disputes relating to classification, valuation, input tax credit, exemption, refund, place of supply and penalties.
AIFTP argued that this would undermine the role of GSTAT as a specialised appellate forum and final fact-finding authority. Instead of developing GST jurisprudence on substantive questions, the Tribunal could find a considerable portion of its time consumed by procedural limitation disputes.
Technological and Administrative Problems Cited as Causes of Delay
The Federation has also identified several circumstances that, according to it, have contributed to delays in filing first appeals.
These include GST portal-related difficulties, authentication failures, payment glitches, system downtime, delayed or improper service of orders, transfers of officers, delays in receiving relied-upon documents and uncertainty regarding the commencement of limitation.
AIFTP further referred to frequent amendments, circulars, divergent rulings and the evolving nature of GST law as factors that created uncertainty for taxpayers. Financial constraints, pre-deposit requirements, restructuring, changes in personnel or consultants and inadequate litigation-management systems were also cited.
The Federation additionally noted that the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted access to records, professional assistance and compliance infrastructure. It submitted that many delays were the result of bona fide mistakes or circumstances beyond taxpayers’ control rather than tax evasion or misuse of appellate remedies.
Proposed Amnesty to Permit Merits-Based Adjudication
AIFTP has proposed that the GST Council consider either a statutory amendment or a one-time transitional measure allowing cases affected by limitation at the first appellate stage to be considered on merits.
Under the proposal, where the delay is regularised through the amnesty mechanism, GSTAT should not reject the matter merely because the original first appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period.
The Federation believes that such a measure would preserve appellate rights, reduce technical litigation and enable the tax authorities and GSTAT to determine the correct tax liability on the basis of the substantive dispute.
AIFTP Seeks Suo Motu Restoration of Time-Barred Appeals
One of the significant recommendations in the representation is for suo motu restoration of appeals that were dismissed by First Appellate Authorities solely on the ground of limitation.
AIFTP has suggested that taxpayers should not be required to initiate separate proceedings merely to revive their appellate remedy. Instead, the proposed amnesty should provide a mechanism for restoration and allow the First Appellate Authorities to examine the disputes on merits.
The Federation argues that this would ensure that substantive justice is not defeated by procedural technicalities.
No Additional Pre-Deposit Should Be Required, Says AIFTP
AIFTP has also made a specific recommendation concerning pre-deposit.
It pointed out that taxpayers who had already filed first appeals would have complied with the requirement of making an additional pre-deposit of 10% under Section 107(6) of the CGST Act.
Therefore, the Federation has requested that no further pre-deposit should be imposed as a condition for restoration or adjudication of such appeals under the proposed amnesty scheme.
According to AIFTP, demanding another payment would create an additional financial burden and run contrary to the purpose of the proposed one-time relief mechanism.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Scheme
The Federation has outlined several anticipated benefits from the proposed amnesty, including:
- enabling disputes to be decided on merits;
- reducing procedural litigation;
- preventing avoidable dismissal of appeals before GSTAT;
- reducing the burden on High Courts;
- strengthening taxpayer confidence in the appellate system;
- promoting consistency in GST jurisprudence;
- supporting voluntary compliance; and
- allowing GSTAT to concentrate on substantive GST controversies instead of limitation disputes.
Proposal Intended to Reduce GSTAT’s Procedural Burden
AIFTP further submitted that a suo motu restoration mechanism could significantly reduce the number of matters reaching GSTAT merely to challenge the dismissal of first appeals on limitation.
This, it argued, would allow the Tribunal to devote greater judicial resources to substantive questions of law and fact, including classification, valuation, ITC, exemptions, refunds and place-of-supply disputes.
The Federation believes that reducing procedural litigation at the Tribunal level would strengthen the appellate structure, facilitate faster dispute resolution and advance the broader objective of ease of doing business.
AIFTP Seeks Early Government Action
Concluding its representation, AIFTP requested that the Government consider the proposed measures at the earliest so that taxpayers can obtain redress on the merits of their GST disputes rather than being denied appellate consideration because of procedural delays.
The representation was submitted on August 7, 2026, by Janak Vaghani, Chairman of the GST, Indirect Tax and GST/Indirect Tax Representation Committee of AIFTP.
Membership Required to Access Representation Details & Copy
To view the complete Representation Details and Download Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
