Topic
First appeals: limitation, condonation of delay, pre-deposit and maintainability.
69 rulings
Delhi High Court
Where SCN quantified penalties against petitioners under section 122(1A) before substituted proviso to section 107(6) mandated 10% pre-deposit for penalty- only appeals, right of appeal vested when SCN was issued and appeals arising from such SCN are governed by pre-amended provision, and so 10% pre-deposit requirement would not apply
Delhi High Court
Where CESTAT determined taxability of service and appeal was filed under section 35G, since precedent establishes that such appeals lie to Supreme Court under section 35L, and appellant cited no contrary statutory provision or binding precedent, appeal before High Court was not maintainable and appellant was relegated to remedy before Supreme Court
GSTAT Hyderabad
Where penalty was imposed for alleged fake invoicing without supply and all proceedings including show cause notice, order-in-original and appellate order arose prior to 01.10.2025, no pre-deposit was required for appeal before GSTAT as proviso mandating pre-deposit for penalty-only appeals came into effect prospectively from 01.10.2025 via Finance Act, 2025
Bombay High Court
Where petitioner deposited substantial amount during investigation and rectified shortfall in statutory pre-deposit before appellate order, dismissal of appeal for non-payment of initial pre-deposit was unsustainable since procedural defects in filing requirements are curable, thus impugned appellate order was set aside and appeal restored for decision on merits
Rajasthan High Court
Where appeal against OIO could not be filed within limitation due to lack of knowledge of GST portal, appellate procedure and non-communication of order except by portal upload, delay was liable to be condoned in writ jurisdiction and appellate authority was to be directed to entertain appeal if filed within 30 days
Uttarakhand High Court
Where assessees' appeals under Section 107 were dismissed as time-barred and sought condonation beyond statutory limits invoking Section 5 read with Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, since GST is a special fiscal statute prescribing specific limitation with restricted condonation, Section 5 stood excluded by necessary implication and appeals beyond prescribed period could not be entertained
Patna High Court
Where petitioner challenged adjudication and recovery orders by writ, withdrawal was permitted with liberty to file statutory appeal before Appellate Authority, excluding period spent in writ from limitation computation and allowing condonation, but re-agitation of previously adjudicated contention was not permitted, while all other contentions remained open for appeal consideration. GST: Where petitioner sought refund of tax recovered during statutory appeal period but filed writ after three months and only within the condonable one-month period, writ registration after defect removal did not cure limitation default, and refund was denied as petitioner failed to approach authority within statutory appeal window prescribed for remedy
Calcutta High Court
Where show cause notice for tax periods was improperly served electronically under a portal tab not reasonably expected to provide notice, resulting in petitioner remaining unaware until recovery proceedings and appeal was dismissed as time-barred without merits, denial of natural justice was established, delay explained, and appellate order was quashed with direction to decide appeal on merits
Delhi High Court
Where assessee, after participating in audit and adjudication and filing detailed replies with documents, challenged an order-in-original via writ on grounds of non- consideration of reply and failure to seek additional documents, since adequate opportunity was provided and alternative appellate remedy under section 107 existed, no exceptional circumstance justified writ interference and complaint pertained to merits not natural justice
Orissa High Court
Where assessee's appeal faced statutory pre-deposit difficulties due to misclassification of interest as tax in DRC-07 and rectification was time-barred, remanding case to Appellate Authority for fresh hearing was necessary since relegating assessee to GSTAT appeal would not serve justice and disputed matters on ITC reversal, interest and penalty required reconsideration on merits
Rajasthan High Court
Where assessee's appeal against Order-in-Original was time-barred solely because order was wrongly uploaded on GST portal under incorrect category, preventing timely knowledge and filing, and delay was not due to assessee's fault, denial of hearing would cause grave prejudice, hence delay was condoned and Appellate Authority was to entertain appeal and decide on merits
Gujarat High Court
Where petitioner challenged order confirming fake ITC demand involving same SCN and identical modus operandi as connected entity, with both operating from same address and similar allegations, statutory appeal remedy was available, making writ jurisdiction not maintainable, and writ petition was rightly rejected in favour of statutory appellate process
Calcutta High Court
Statutory appellate powers which permitted only confirmation, modification or annulment, where Appellate Authority, while dealing with ex parte order confirming tax, interest and penalty for alleged short- payment on outward supplies and availing excess ITC, directed parties to appear before Adjudicating Authority for further proceeding, such remand exceeded statutory appellate powers and Appellate Authority should decide issue within statutory limits. GST: Where despite express statutory prohibition, Appellate Authority remanded matter to Adjudicating Authority for allowing admissible ITC while rectification was rejected as time-barred without addressing jurisdictional defect, both orders were to be set aside; writ remedy was maintainable despite existence of alternative appellate remedy
Karnataka High Court
Failure to upload an adjudication order in regular portal tab, coupled with non- service of full order and subsequent delayed knowledge, justified writ interference despite limitation; dismissal of statutory appeal was set aside, delay condoned and appeal restored for adjudication on merits, assessee having made statutory pre- deposit. GST: Coercive garnishee recovery during pendency of a statutory appeal, despite requisite pre-deposit, was unjustified; in view of appellate restoration, garnishee order was quashed, while dismissal of appeal as time-barred was set aside and delay condoned, with appeal restored for decision on merits
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Where petitioner challenged order-in-original and GST DRC-07 summary by writ petition despite statutory remedy of appeal under section 107, petitioner was required to pursue appellate remedy and period spent in writ was to be excluded from limitation, allowing appeal to be filed within thirty days
Rajasthan High Court
Where petitioner's GST registration was cancelled and statutory appeal was filed with delay of 167 days due to bona fide, uncontrollable reasons including business closure and fraud-tag impacting livelihood, and Appellate Authority otherwise lacked jurisdiction to condone such delay, non-adjudication would cause grave prejudice so delay was condoned and appeal was directed to be entertained on merits
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Where due to proprietor's hospitalization, appeal was filed with 17 days delay beyond period 30 days prescribed under Act and authority rejected admission without examining sufficient cause or conducting an independent inquiry, delay was to be condoned considering that appeal is a valuable statutory right
Supreme Court
Notice issued against impugned order of High Court that where appellate authority rejected appeal as beyond limitation under section 107(4) and assessee argued that limitation should run from date of communication, since order was admittedly communicated on date of passing itself, limitation commenced from that date and delay beyond outer limit could not be condoned, no illegality was found and writ petition was to be dismissed
Karnataka High Court
Where ex parte GST orders were passed and assessee raised arguable issues on reverse charge liability and demand exceeding stated in show cause notice, in peculiar facts of case belated statutory appeals was to be allowed for adjudication on merits
Karnataka High Court
Where petitioner partnership firm's statutory appeal against SCN adjudication was dismissed as time-barred on computed period of delay from date on which order was wrongly uploaded on portal, since precedents permitted interference despite absence of statutory power to condone further delay, dismissal of appeal in instant case was unsustainable; delay was to be condoned, and appeal was to be directed to be adjudicated on merits