The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted relief to a taxpayer whose GST appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on the ground of delay, holding that the authority had incorrectly calculated the period of limitation. 

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal took note of the exceptional circumstances surrounding the delay, including the serious illness and subsequent death of the petitioner’s grandmother, as well as the fact that the entire tax liability had already been deposited and recovered by the authorities. 

The dispute arose from the dismissal of the petitioner’s GST appeal by the Appellate Authority through an order dated January 31, 2025. The appeal, bearing No. AD230624007525D, had been rejected on the ground that it was filed beyond the permissible limitation period. 

Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026

Before the High Court, the petitioner explained that the appeal had actually been filed on June 18, 2024, but the delay occurred in circumstances involving his grandmother’s serious illness. She subsequently passed away on May 29, 2024. The petitioner relied upon several decisions of other High Courts dealing with the power of constitutional courts to grant relief in exceptional cases involving delay in filing GST appeals. 

The central legal issue before the High Court was the correct computation of the limitation period available for filing a GST appeal and the extent to which delay could be condoned by the appellate authority.

The Court noted that under the GST Act, an appeal is required to be filed within 90 days, while the appellate authority possesses the power to condone a further delay of one month. Thus, the effective period available, including the condonable period, was 120 days. 

The High Court found that the appellate authority had proceeded on the basis that the petitioner’s appeal suffered from a delay of 126 days. According to the High Court, this calculation was incorrect. After accounting for the initial 90-day limitation period and the additional 30-day period available for condonation, the actual delay was only six days. 

The Court’s finding on limitation was therefore significant because the dismissal of the appeal had been founded upon an erroneous computation of the delay.

The petitioner had specifically explained the circumstances responsible for the delay. His grandmother had been seriously ill and died on May 29, 2024. The High Court observed that this period fell within the normal limitation period and constituted a relevant circumstance while considering the explanation offered for the delay. 

The Bench also referred to decisions of the Punjab and Haryana, Rajasthan and Madras High Courts, in which relief had been granted in appropriate circumstances concerning delayed GST appeals. The Court noted that, in exceptional circumstances, a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could condone delay. 

Importantly, the High Court found that the explanation furnished by the petitioner had not been properly considered by the appellate authority.

Another factor that weighed with the High Court was the petitioner’s compliance with the tax liability. The Court recorded that the petitioner had deposited the entire tax amount and that the respondents had already recovered ₹22,36,434 towards the tax liability. 

This circumstance reinforced the Court’s conclusion that the matter deserved to be examined on merits rather than being shut out on the basis of an incorrectly calculated delay.

Considering the exceptional facts and circumstances, the High Court exercised its jurisdiction to condone the delay and directed the appellate authority to hear and decide the petitioner’s GST appeal on merits. 

The Court consequently set aside the appellate order dated January 31, 2025, and ordered remand and restoration of the appeal. 

Since the entire tax amount had already been recovered from the petitioner, the High Court further directed that the petitioner’s bank account be treated as released. The Court thereafter allowed the writ petition. 

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: AIFTP Seeks One-Time GST Amnesty to Revive Appeals Dismissed for Delay U/s 107