Calcutta High Court Restores Appeal: Appellate Authority Cannot Ignore Special Amnesty Notifications

1. The Core Dispute: Amnesty vs. Statutory Limitation

The petitioner was caught in a cycle of litigation regarding a partially rejected refund claim from 2020.

Initial Rejection: The refund was rejected in 2020. The first appeal (filed in Sept 2020) was dismissed in March 2021 solely on the grounds of delay (limitation).
The Amnesty Window: Recognizing the hardships caused during the pandemic and subsequent transitions, the CBIC issued a Special Notification on November 2, 2023. This allowed taxpayers whose appeals were dismissed for delay to refile their appeals by January 31, 2024.
The Second Rejection: The petitioner complied and refiled in January 2024. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed this appeal in July 2025, again citing it as “time-barred” under the standard 3-month window of Section 107.

2. The Legal Analysis: Overriding Power of Special Notifications

The High Court set aside the dismissal, emphasizing that special notifications issued under Section 168A (Power of Government to extend time limit in special circumstances) must be given full effect.

I. Specificity over Generality

The court held that once a specific notification (Amnesty Scheme) creates a new window for filing, the general limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act is temporarily superseded for that class of taxpayers. The Appellate Authority cannot “double-count” the delay by looking back at the original 2020 dates.

II. Failure to Apply Mind

The Authority’s decision to reject the appeal based on limitation was deemed a “failure to apply mind” to the prevailing law. Since the refiling happened in January 2024 (within the Jan 31 deadline), it was perfectly within the window granted by the Government.

3. Final Order and Directions

The High Court found the Appellate Authority’s order unsustainable and passed the following directions:

Quashing of Order: The dismissal order dated July 29, 2025, was quashed and set aside.
Restoration: The appeal was restored to the file of the Appellate Authority.
Hearing on Merits: The Authority was directed to hear the appeal on its substantive merits (the refund claim itself) rather than rejecting it again on technical/limitation grounds.

Key Takeaways for Taxpayers

Amnesty Notifications are Binding: If you have filed an appeal under a special Amnesty Scheme or a time-extension notification, the Department cannot use the “original” delay to reject your case.
Section 168A vs. Section 107: Understand that Section 168A is a “remedial” power used by the Government to fix systemic injustices. Notifications issued under this section have the force of law and must be followed by all quasi-judicial authorities.
Check for “Refiling” Rights: Always keep a lookout for CBIC Notifications (like the one in Nov 2023) which often provide a second chance to taxpayers who lost their appellate rights due to technical or pandemic-related delays.

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA

Key Business Consultants (P.) Ltd.

Union of India^*

Om Narayan Rai, J.

WPA No. 26981 of 2025

JANUARY 7, 2026

Akshay Ringasia and Subhamoy Patra for the Petitioner. Udag Sankar Bhattacharya and Anurag Roy for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Affidavit of service as filed today on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.

2. This writ petition is directed against an order dated July 29, 2025 passed by the appellate authority under Section 107 of the WBGST Act, 2017/CGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act of 2017′) whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the order dated February 19, 2020 has been dismissed on the ground of delay.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submits that initially the order dated April 23, 2020 whereby the petitioners’ request for refund had been rejected in part had been challenged before the appellate authority by filing an appeal on September 14, 2020.

4. Such appeal was dismissed by an order dated March 26, 2021 on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the appellate authority could not have dismissed petitioners’ appeal on the ground of delay inasmuch as at the time when the petitioners had lodged their appeal before the appellate authority, the statutory period for filing appeals had been extended by orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the Covid- 19 pandemic.

5. It is submitted that subsequently, an amnesty Scheme was floated vide notification dated November 02, 2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (hereafter “CBIC”) whereby it was clarified that taxable persons, whose appeals had been dismissed solely on the ground that the said appeals had not been filed within the time period specified in Section 107 of the said Act, 2017, would be entitled to file appeal before the appellate authority on or before January 31, 2024.

6. On the strength of the said notification, the petitioner’s filed their appeal before the appellate authority on January 3, 2024. By the appellate order impugned herein, the said appeal has also been dismissed on the ground that the appeal has been filed “with a delay of more than 3(three) years and 5 months from the prescribed period of three months from the date of communication of the impugned order to the appellant”.

7. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent CGST Authorities submits that the petitioner’s appeal has been rejected inasmuch as the same was not in form.

8. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the material on record.

9. It is evident that the petitioner has filed the appeal (which has been dismissed by the order impugned) within the time specified by and in terms of the notification dated November 2, 2023 whereby taxable persons whose appeals had been rejected solely on the ground of the same being filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 had been granted option of filing appeal again under Section 107 of the said Act, 2017 on or before January 31, 2024.

10. The appellate authority has however, dismissed the petitioners’ appeal, again only on the ground of the same having been filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the said Act of 2017 and not on the ground that the appeal was not in form as contended by Mr. Bhattacharya.

11. Once the CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023 granted an option to all persons (whose appeals had suffered rejection on the ground of limitation as aforesaid) to file fresh appeals, and the petitioners lodged their appeal accordingly, appellate authority could not have rejected the petitioners’ appeal that had been filed in terms of the said Circular citing the bar of limitation in terms of Section 107 of the said Act of 2017 as the ground for such rejection.

12. Since the appellate authority has evidently not applied its mind to the matter in the light of the said CBIC notification dated November 2, 2023 which permitted persons whose appeals had been dismissed solely on the ground of the same not being filed within the prescribed period of limitation under Section 107 of the said Act of 2017, the appellate order impugned cannot be sustained.

13. Accordingly, the order dated July 29, 2025 is set aside and the appeal is restored to the file of the appellate authority for being considered afresh.

14. WPA 26981 of 2025 stands disposed of with the above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.

15. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible.