Appeal filed within three months of a rectification rejection

Appeal filed within three months of a rectification rejection cannot be dismissed as time-barred.

Issue

Whether a statutory appeal filed within three months from the rejection of a rectification application can be dismissed as time-barred on a technicality if the appeal memo mistakenly assails the original assessment order rather than the rectification rejection order.

Facts

The Assistant Commissioner passed the original assessment order against the assessee for the period 2019–2020 on 29 August 2024.
The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 161 on 22 November 2024, which was within the statutory period.
The tax authority rejected the rectification application on 24 November 2025.
The assessee filed a statutory appeal on 19 February 2026, which was within three months from the date the rectification was rejected.
In the appeal memo, the assessee inadvertently assailed the original order instead of the rectification rejection order.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred by computing the limitation period strictly from the date of the original order (29 August 2024).

Decision

The High Court noted that the timeline of events clearly demonstrated that the assessee was diligently pursuing available statutory remedies against the original order.
The Court held that since the appeal was filed within three months of the rectification rejection, dismissing the entire case on a technical defect was completely unjustified.
The Court observed that a pragmatic approach was required, and the appellate authority should have allowed the assessee to amend the appeal memo to correct the reference.
The appellate authority’s order dismissing the appeal on limitation was set aside.
The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to be decided freshly on its merits.

Key Takeaways

Substance Over Form: Appellate authorities must adopt a pragmatic approach. Diligent taxpayers should not be denied justice on administrative technicalities or simple formatting errors in an appeal memo.
Permission to Amend: If an appeal memo mistakenly challenges the original order instead of the companion rectification order, the authority should offer the taxpayer an opportunity to amend the memo rather than dismissing the case outright.
Limitation Continuity: Pursuing a timely rectification application demonstrates a continuous, diligent legal effort, meaning a subsequent appeal filed within three months of that application’s rejection should be entertained on its merits.

HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA

One E Store (P.) Ltd.

Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes)

P. Sam Koshy and NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, JJ.

WRIT PETITION No. 17308 of 2026

JUNE 10, 2026

K.P. Amarnath Reddy, Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. Swaroop Oorilla, Ld. Govt. Pleader for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. K.P. Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents.

2. The instant is the writ petition which has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, dated 20.04.2026, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) was rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation. The original order of assessment has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.08.2024 for the financial year 2019-2020. Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an application for rectification on 22.11.2024 i.e. within the time limit prescribed under the Act and also within the period of limitation prescribed for filing of application. The rectification application finally stood rejected vide the order dated 24.11.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have immediately preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner on 19.02.2026 that again is within the period of three months from 24.11.2025. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the original order dated 29.08.2024 and not rectification order dated 24.11.2025. On account of which, the Appellate authority had rejected the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation counting the limitation from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy under the statute available seeking for rectification of the original order dated 29.08.2024 and the said application was decided by the authority only after period about one year on 24.11.2025 and thereafter, the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was filed within three months period prescribed for preferring the appeal. According to the petitioner, he has given a satisfactory and plausible explanation for non-filing of the appeal within three months period from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024 and it was also contended that it is not the case that the petitioner was sitting idle of not having preferred any other statutory remedy available to him and abruptly filed the appeal without explanation on 19.02.2026.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, opposing the petition submits that the petitioner since has preferred an appeal after rejection of the rectification application. For all practical purposes, the petitioner ought to have challenged the rectification order itself in the appeal, which is otherwise permissible under the statute and therefore, the order cannot be found fault with.

5. Having heard the contentions put forth by either side and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the original order was passed on 29.08.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner. There is also no dispute to the extent of rectification application having been filed on 22.11.2024, which again is within three months from the date of original order was passed and admittedly, the rectification application was decided vide order dated 24.11.2025 and it is only thereafter within a period of three months from 24.11.2025, the appeal was filed before Appellate Commissioner on 19.02.2026.

6. With the aforesaid admitted factual matrix and the dates available, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner has been genuinely pursuing her remedies available under the statute against the original order dated 29.08.2024 and only after her rectification application stood rejected, she has again timely filed the appeal within the period of three months from the date when the rectification application stood rejected.

7. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have rejected the appeal on this hyper technical aspect of appeal being filed after about more than one and half years from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024. At best, if at all, the Appellate Joint Commissioner was of the view that there was no challenge to the rejection order of the rectification application dated 24.11.2025, the petitioner would have been advised to amend the memo of appeal suitably, so as to make good the technicalities, so far as the limitation is concerned and also so far as challenge to the original order dated 29.08.2024 is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the Appellate Joint Commissioner ought not to have taken more pragmatic approach in deciding the appeal, particularly, in the aforesaid given factual matrix.

8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P.10) insofar as the appeal being dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. The matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Joint Commissioner to decide the appeal purely on its merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.

9. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.