Writ Courts Can’t Condone Delays In Filing GST Appeals Beyond Maximum Statutory Period: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court has held that courts cannot condone delays in filing GST appeals beyond the maximum statutory period, even while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi has dismissed a writ petition filed by a partnership firm after finding that the delay exceeded the condonable limit prescribed under law. The petitioner, a partnership firm registered under GST, was issued a demand order dated March 21, 2024 under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act, requiring payment of ₹1,98,720 towards tax along with interest and penalty, taking the total demand to ₹5,03,768. According to the petitioner, notices for personal hearing were uploaded on the GST portal with scheduled dates in September 2025, but no separate communication was sent via email or post, resulting in its absence from the hearings. The firm further claimed that it became aware of the demand order only on March 30, 2025 and thereafter approached the department, which advised it to either pay the amount or file an appeal with a request for condonation of delay. However, the appellate authority rejected the appeal, noting that it lacked the power to condone delays beyond the statutory period. The High Court observed that the petitioner filed the appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act after a delay of 284 days. Explaining the delay, the petitioner stated that it had limited computer knowledge and relied on a part-time accountant whose role was restricted to maintaining accounts and filing GST returns, and therefore was unaware that the tax determination order (DRC-07) had been issued. The Court found this explanation unconvincing, remarking that in today’s digital era it was difficult to believe that the taxpayer and its accountant lacked the knowledge to verify orders on the GST portal. Referring to Section 107(4) of the GST Act, the bench noted that an appeal must ordinarily be filed within 90 days, with a further condonable period of only 30 days if “sufficient cause” is shown. Once this additional period is exhausted, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can extend the limitation. The Court emphasized that taxing statutes operate within strict timelines and any relaxation would have a cascading effect on revenue administration. The bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd., which held that High Courts should not disregard legislative intent by entertaining matters filed beyond the maximum limitation period. The Court reiterated that although writ jurisdiction is wide, it cannot be exercised in a manner inconsistent with statutory provisions governing limitation. It also cited earlier judgments emphasizing that when a special statute prescribes a definite limitation period, courts must respect that mandate as a matter of public policy. The High Court observed that taxpayers are expected to remain vigilant regarding proceedings and regularly verify orders uploaded on the GST portal. Even if a valid explanation were available, the Court clarified that it could not condone delay beyond 120 days in total, as doing so would dilute legislative intent. Since the petitioner had already availed the statutory remedy of appeal, the Court declined to examine the legality of the original demand order. It noted that the dispute involved factual issues rather than jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice. Concluding that it lacked the authority to condone the excessive delay, the Court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that the remedy of appeal is a creature of statute and must be exercised strictly within the prescribed timeframe. Case Details Case Title: M/S. Agrawal Enterprises Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. Case No.: R/Special Civil Application No. 386 Of 2026 Date: 16/01/2026 Counsel For Petitioner: As Asthavadi Counsel For Respondent: Tanushree Shrimal Click Here To Read Order Read More: No Employer-Employee Relationship Between Diagnostic Firm and Consultant Doctors; TDS Under S. 194J Valid: ITAT

Writ Courts Can’t Condone Delays In Filing GST Appeals Beyond Maximum Statutory Period: Gujarat HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

Bank Loan Upfront Fee Revenue Expenditure Even Where Loan Is Used for Capital Assets: Delhi High Court

Finance Act 2010 Can’t Create Fresh TDS Liability for Offshore Technical Services: Karnataka High Court Reads Down Retrospective Tax Amendment

Erection Services Were Not Liable To Service Tax Prior To 10 September 2004: CESTAT

Can Commercial Vehicles Qualify for 50% Depreciation? Delhi ITAT Follows Consistent Precedent in Favour of Assessee

More like this

Bank Loan Upfront Fee Revenue Expenditure Even Where Loan Is Used for Capital Assets: Delhi High Court

Finance Act 2010 Can’t Create Fresh TDS Liability for Offshore Technical Services: Karnataka High Court Reads Down Retrospective Tax Amendment

Erection Services Were Not Liable To Service Tax Prior To 10 September 2004: CESTAT

About us

Company

Categories