![Whether GST Appeal Limitation Begins from Actual Communication of Order? Supreme Court Issues Notice [READ ORDER]](https://www.jurishour.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Whether-GST-Appeal-Limitation-Begins-from-Actual-Communication-of-Order-696x392.jpg "Whether GST Appeal Limitation Begins from Actual Communication of Order")
The Supreme Court has issued notice in a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an Orissa High Court judgment that refused to interfere with the dismissal of its GST appeal on the ground of limitation. The matter has been listed for further consideration on July 27, 2026.
The bench of Justice K.V. Viswanathan and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar directed issuance of notice to the respondents, granted liberty to serve the State’s Standing Counsel, and further directed that a copy of the petition be supplied to Additional Solicitor General Raghavendra P. Shankar.
The litigation arises from an order passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, against which the petitioner sought to file an appeal before the appellate authority.
Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026
The appeal, however, was rejected by the Additional Commissioner of CT & GST (Appeal), Rourkela, who refused to condone the delay, holding that the appeal had been filed beyond the maximum period that could legally be condoned under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act.
Aggrieved by this decision, the company approached the Orissa High Court through a writ petition.
Petitioner’s Contention Before the High Court
The petitioner argued that the adjudication order had not been communicated to it when it was originally passed. According to the company, it first became aware of the order only on June 14, 2024, when its bank account was attached by the GST authorities.
On this basis, it was contended that the limitation period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act should commence from the date of communication of the order rather than from the date on which the order was passed.
High Court’s Findings
The Orissa High Court acknowledged the settled legal position that limitation under Section 107(1) begins from the date on which the order is communicated to the aggrieved person.
However, the Court found that the petitioner’s own GST APL-01 appeal form stated that the adjudication order dated November 21, 2023 had been communicated on the very same day.
The Court observed that once the appellant itself admits the date of communication in the statutory appeal form, it is deemed to have accepted that communication for the purpose of limitation. Consequently, the limitation period commenced from that date.
Outer Limit for Condonation Cannot Be Extended
The High Court further noted that Section 107(4) permits the appellate authority to condone delay only for one additional month beyond the normal limitation period, provided sufficient cause is shown.
Since the appeal had been filed beyond this statutory outer limit, the appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to condone the delay.
The Court held that once Parliament has prescribed a maximum period for condonation, the authority cannot exercise any equitable or inherent power to extend the limitation beyond that statutory ceiling. Finding no illegality in the appellate authority’s decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Supreme Court Takes Up the Matter
The petitioner has now challenged the High Court’s judgment before the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the Supreme Court has issued notice to the respondents and fixed the matter for hearing on July 27, 2026.
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: Supreme Court Quashes NCLT & NCLAT Orders Over AI-Hallucinated Judgments
