The Orissa High Court has held that the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/OGST Act must be reckoned from the day following the communication of the adjudication order. 

The bench of Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo and Justice M.S. Raman has observed that the appellate authority had committed an apparent error in law while determining the delay in filing the appeal and set aside an order rejecting a taxpayer’s appeal as time-barred after finding that the appellate authority had incorrectly calculated the limitation period. 

The petitioner challenged an adjudication order passed under Section 73 of the GST Act for the tax period April 2022 to March 2023. Aggrieved by the order, the taxpayer filed an appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act on February 13, 2026. 

However, the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Cuttack, rejected the appeal on March 23, 2026, holding that it had been filed beyond the maximum condonable period and was therefore not maintainable. According to the appellate authority, the appeal involved a delay of 31 days beyond the permissible period and could not be entertained. 

The taxpayer approached the High Court contending that the appellate authority had wrongly calculated the limitation period and that the appeal had actually been filed within the statutory condonable period. 

The petitioner argued that under Section 107(1) of the GST Act, an appeal must be filed within three months from the date on which the order is communicated. Relying on Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, it was submitted that the date of communication itself must be excluded while computing limitations. Consequently, since the adjudication order was communicated on October 15, 2025, the limitation period should begin from October 16, 2025. 

The taxpayer presented the following calculation:

On this basis, the petitioner contended that the appeal was filed before the expiry of the additional one-month condonable period available under Section 107(4) of the GST Act and therefore deserved consideration on merits. 

The State authorities did not dispute the dates of the adjudication order and the filing of the appeal. However, they argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 112 of the GST Act and therefore should not invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 

The Court undertook an extensive examination of judicial precedents dealing with the interpretation of the term “month” and the principles governing computation of limitation periods. It referred to several important judgments, including: Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals), State of H.P. v. Himachal Techno Engineers, Bibi Salma Khatoon v. State of Bihar, Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi v. State of Gujarat, and State of West Bengal v. Rajpath Contractors & Engineers Ltd.

The Court reiterated that the expression “month” refers to a calendar month and not a fixed period of 30 days. Where a statute prescribes a limitation period “from” a particular date, the first day must be excluded while calculating limitation. The limitation period commences from the next day following the communication or receipt of the order. 

Applying these principles, the Bench held that the appellate authority had incorrectly computed the limitation period by including the date of communication of the order.

The High Court further noted that the appellate authority had issued a show-cause notice proposing rejection of the appeal on the ground of delay. The taxpayer had filed a reply explaining that the delay was only 29 days and fell within the condonable period. 

Despite the reply being electronically filed and acknowledged on March 17, 2026, the appellate authority proceeded on the assumption that no response had been submitted and rejected the appeal on March 23, 2026. 

The Court held that ignoring a reply that was already on record amounted to denial of a fair opportunity and constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. 

The Division Bench concluded that the appeal had not exceeded the statutory outer limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. It held that the delay was only 29 days and not beyond the condonable period as assumed by the appellate authority. 

Accordingly, the Court set aside the appellate order dated March 23, 2026. Remanded the matter to the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal).

The court directed the authority to consider the taxpayer’s explanation for the delay and clarified that if the explanation is found satisfactory, the appeal should be admitted and decided on merits in accordance with law. 

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: S. 73 & 74 Permit Consolidated Proceedings Across FY: Gauhati High Court Upholds Multi-Year GST SCN