Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeGSTGST Appeal Filed Within 3 Months After Excluding Order Date Can’t Be...

GST Appeal Filed Within 3 Months After Excluding Order Date Can’t Be Rejected as Delayed: Madras High Court

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Madras High Court has restored a GST appeal that was rejected solely on the ground of limitation, holding that the appeal was filed within the prescribed three-month period when the date of issuance of the original order was excluded from the computation.

The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that although the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply directly to proceedings before a quasi-judicial authority, the principles underlying the legislation may be applied in appropriate cases.

Buy Now: E-Magazine: 1000+ Landmark GST Judgments (2017–2026)

The petitioner/assessee has challenged an order issued in Form GST APL-02 by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appellate Authority, Salem. The appellate authority had rejected the petitioner’s GST appeal solely on the ground that it was filed beyond the limitation period.

The petitioner had challenged an original order dated February 17, 2026. The statutory appeal against that order was lodged on May 18, 2026.

The petitioner contended that the appeal had been presented within the prescribed period of three months. It was argued that the limitation period should be calculated after excluding February 17, 2026—the date on which the original order was issued.

The High Court accepted the contention regarding computation of limitation. It observed that the principles underlying Section 12 of the Limitation Act permit the exclusion of the date from which the limitation period is required to be calculated.

“Although the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable to proceedings before a quasi judicial body, principles underlying the Limitation Act may be applied in appropriate cases,” the Court observed.

The Court held that if the three-month limitation period was calculated after excluding the date on which the original order was issued, the petitioner’s appeal would fall within the prescribed period.

The High Court also pointed out that even if the appeal were treated as having been filed after the expiry of the initial three-month period, the appellate authority possessed statutory jurisdiction to condone a delay of up to one additional month.

Under the GST appellate framework, an assessee is ordinarily required to file an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority within three months from the date on which the disputed decision or order is communicated. The appellate authority may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month if sufficient cause is shown for the delay.

The appellate authority rejected the appeal without examining the dispute on its merits. The High Court found that the rejection could not be sustained in view of both the method for calculating the limitation period and the appellate authority’s power to condone a delay of up to one month.

The Court set aside the order rejecting the appeal and restored the proceedings before the appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appellate Authority, Salem, was directed to receive the appeal and dispose of it on merits.

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.

Membership Required

You must be a member to access this content.

View Membership Levels

Already a member? Log in here

Read More: Jurisdictional Officer Can’t Issue Reassessment Notice Where NFAC Has Exclusive Authority: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

Scotch Whisky Duty Dispute: Companies Seek 75% Import Duty as India Examines Bulk Whisky Imports

India’s reduced tariff on Scotch whisky under the India–UK trade agreement has triggered a...

Trump Signs Executive Order to Reduce Mortgage Costs, Expand Housing Affordability in US

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to take...

China Tightens Tax Enforcement on Offshore Trusts, Wealthy Individuals Face Scrutiny Over Overseas Assets

China is stepping up tax enforcement against wealthy individuals holding assets overseas, including investments...

Delhi High Court Rejects AISA President Neha Bora’s Plea Against Peace Bond Notice Over CEC Protest

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition filed by All India Students’ Association...

More like this

Scotch Whisky Duty Dispute: Companies Seek 75% Import Duty as India Examines Bulk Whisky Imports

India’s reduced tariff on Scotch whisky under the India–UK trade agreement has triggered a...

Trump Signs Executive Order to Reduce Mortgage Costs, Expand Housing Affordability in US

US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to take...

China Tightens Tax Enforcement on Offshore Trusts, Wealthy Individuals Face Scrutiny Over Overseas Assets

China is stepping up tax enforcement against wealthy individuals holding assets overseas, including investments...