Writ Jurisdiction Condones Appeal Delay and Quashes Garnishee Order Where Order Was Misplaced on Portal

ORDER

1. The present writ petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

“WHEREFORE, the Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to:

2. The facts in a nutshell are that consequent to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017¹, the order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) was passed under Section 73(9) of the Act with respect to the period 2020-21.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said order dated 08.01.2026 was not updated on the portal under the tab “View Notices and Orders”, wherein the orders are normally updated; instead, it was uploaded under the tab “Additional Notices and Orders”, which was not the standard location that the taxpayers normally check.

4. However, it is the case of the official respondents that the said order dated 08.01.2025 was also communicated to the petitioner by a Registered Post Acknowledgement Due². Copies of the intimation as well as the postal acknowledgement for the said order having been served, has been produced as Annexures-R, R1 and R2 along with the statement of objections. A perusal of Annexure-R1 indicates that the same is only a summary of the order dated 08.01.2025 and that the entire order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) was not sent by registered post.

5. Be that as it may, it is the case of the petitioner that it learnt of the order dated 08.01.2025, only on 08.09.2025 and immediately the petitioner made an application for rectification on the same day, which was rejected vide order dated 28.10.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal (Appeal No.APL/GST-418/2025-26) under Section 107 of the Act on 21.01.2026. That during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner made a pre-deposit of Rs. 4,31,246/- in the said appeal.

6. It is a further case of the petitioner that notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, a garnishee order dated 12.03.2026 (Annexure-L to the writ petition) has been issued. Thereafter, the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-A to the writ petition). Being aggrieved, the present writ petition is filed impugning various orders, inter alia the order dated 15.05.2026 dismissing the appeal, the order-in-original dated 08.01.2025 as well as the garnishee order dated 12.03.2026.

7. It is a vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the order-in-original dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and that immediately upon learning regarding the same, it made an application for rectification. That consequent to the rejection of the rectification application, the appeal was filed which was dismissed as being barred by time. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the limitation for filing of appeal under the provisions of the Act was a period of 90 days and that the appellate authority could condone the delay for a period upto 30 days. That since the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax that has been levied in terms of the original order dated 08.01.2025 and that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been adjudicated on its merits. It is further contended that the petitioner had also made the pre-deposit along with the appeal. It is also contended that no allegations of fraud have been made against the petitioner and that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax which has been levied purportedly on the basis of an excess claim made towards Input Tax Credit (ITC).

9. Having regard to the factual matrix as noticed above, it is clear that the order dated 08.01.2025, was not uploaded in the regular tab in the portal and that the petitioner learnt regarding the same only subsequently.

10. Although various contentions have been put forth by the petitioner as also by the learned AGA on behalf of the official respondent with regard to the knowledge of the petitioner with respect to the order dated 08.01.2025, having regard to the fact that the contention of the petitioner that it is not liable to pay the tax in terms of the order dated 08.01.2025 has not been adjudicated on its merits in the appeal filed by the petitioner, it is expedient that the petitioner be afforded an another opportunity to prosecute the appeal filed by it. The same is due to the fact that the appeal is a valuable statutory right which ordinarily ought not to be taken away.

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to notice a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. v. Jt. Commissioner [W.A. No. 942 of 2021, dated 3-12-2021], whereunder it has been held as under:

“17. In the usual course if the assessee knocks the doors of the Writ Court without exhausting the alternative remedy of appeal available under the Act, no exception can be found with the Writ Court in rejecting the writ petition as not maintainable, but having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, as in the present case when the appellants have approached the Writ Court with an alternative relief of seeking permission to file an appeal before the appellate authority, any finding recorded on the merits of the case which indeed relates to facts warrants interference.

18. Thus, it is clear that in the absence of power vested with the appellate authority to condone the delay, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of the justice would be met in permitting the appellants to file an appeal instead of adjudicating the matter on merits subject to conditions as aforesaid.”

12. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the case of Vishal Durgadas Jaiwant v. Joint CCTes (Appeals) 07 GSTL 181 (Karnataka)/W.P.No.100561/2026, dated 30.01.2026 , while considering a fact situation in which an appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act had been dismissed as barred by limitation, held as under:

“7. The above reasons disclose that the petitioner had acted under bona fide belief that the mismatch in the Input Tax Credit would be rectified by the supplier, that a legal notice was issued to the supplier, and that the delay was occasioned due to lack of professional assistance and limited awareness of procedural requirements. The explanation, in the present facts, cannot be said to be lacking bona fides.

8. No doubt Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the period within an appeal to be filed. However, adopting a justice oriented approach, particularly when the justification offered is reasonable and when the matter deserves consideration on merits, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned and the matter requires consideration on merits by the appellate authority having regard to the circler issued by the GST council, namely No.183/15/2022-GST dated 27.12.2022 and Circular bearing No. No.193/05/2023-GST dated 17.07.2023.”

13. A Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in the case of Shaik Abdul Azeez v. State of AP 102 GST 840/83 GSTL 294 (Andhra Pradesh)/2024 SCC Online AP 2586, while considering a fact situation, wherein the appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act was rejected as barred by limitation and beyond the condonable statutory period held as under:

“12. Though the impugned order in view of Section 107 of APGST Act does not suffer from any illegality, as the appellate authority cannot condone the delay beyond statutory condonable period but considering that there was sufficient cause for not preferring appeal in time, the interest of justice requires condonation of the delay. The appeal is a valuable statutory right. In exercise of writ jurisdiction to do complete justice and provide opportunity of hearing on merits of the appeal, we condone the delay by imposing costs of Rs.20,000/-. The appellate authority shall consider and decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law, expeditiously. The Costs shall be deposited in two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the appellate authority.”

14. A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in the case of M.R. Traders, through its Proprietor Shri Jagdish v. Union of India 2026 SCC Online Raj 2115, considering as to whether the delay can be condoned by the appellate authority in proceedings under Section 107 of the Act, as also the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India, in such cases held as under:

“11. Furthermore, three other High Courts i.e. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Calcutta High Court and Madras High Court in unison have opined that statutory limitation period as outlined in Section 107 of the CGST, 2017, no doubt, is mandatory on the appellate authority, however, the constitutional discretion of the High Court vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not curtailed by the said provision. The High Court thus retains the power to condone delays in appropriate cases so as to prevent a business from being rendered incapable of being operated for lack of remedy.

11.1………..

11.2………..

11.3. Moreover, the appellate authority under the CGST Act is a pure creature of statute, deriving both its jurisdiction and its limits from Section 107. Where the legislature, in its wisdom, has consciously conferred a limited discretion to condone delay and has simultaneously circumscribed that discretion by prescribing an express outer boundary of one additional month, the statutory authority is bound hand and foot by such limitation. It is not open to a statutory authority to enlarge its own jurisdiction by importing powers from the Limitation Act, 1963, in the absence of a clear legislative mandate.

11.4. Section 107(4) thus operates as a jurisdictional cap, not a mere procedural guideline. The discretion of the appellate authority stands expressly exhausted upon expiry of the additional one month contemplated therein. Any attempt to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to travel beyond this statutorily ordained boundary would amount to rewriting the provision and arrogating to the authority a power which the legislature has consciously withheld.

11.5. The distinction, therefore, is not one of sympathy or sufficiency of cause, but of jurisdictional competence. While Constitutional Courts, exercising plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may in appropriate cases condone delay so as to prevent a complete denial of remedy, such constitutional elasticity cannot be transposed into the statutory framework governing the appellate authority.

11.6. Thus, we are of the opinion that the statutory scheme under Section 107 admits of no discretion with the appellate authority to grant extension beyond the expressly prescribed period. The application of the Limitation Act stands unequivocally excluded by necessary implication. Accordinly, we hold that the appellate authority does not possesses the unrestricted discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the ceiling prescribed in Section 107(4).

12. It is also pertinent to note that the CGST Act is not a statute enacted solely for revenue collection. It represents a comprehensive fiscal reform intended to consolidate multiple indirect taxes and, at the same time, to facilitate trade, commerce, and business continuity. This legislative intent is clearly discernible from the scheme of the Act, particularly the provisions relating to revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 and appellate remedies under Section 107. The emphasis of the statute is thus not merely punitive compliance, but regulated facilitation of economic activity. Any interpretation which renders statutory remedies illusory on hyper-technical grounds would defeat the very purpose of the enactment.

13. Cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines should not permanently debar a taxpayer from the GST framework, especially where the taxpayer intends to comply by filing returns, paying taxes, interest, and penalties, and rectifying defaults. In such cases, denial of opportunity to an assessee undermines the inclusive and facilitative objective of the GST regime. Non-restoration of GST registration in such cases also directly impairs the assessee’s ability to conduct business, earn a livelihood and leads economic paralysis, thus, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by imposing disproportionate and unreasonable hardship. “

15. The petitioner has also made the pre-deposit and the garnishee order dated 12.03.2026 has been issued during the pendency of the appeal.

16. In the present case, it is the contention of the petitioner that it is not liable to pay tax as demanded in the original order dated 08.01.2025, having regard to the fact that the ITC availed by the petitioner was justified. The petitioner further contests the levy of interest with respect to the alleged short payment of tax, as also the levy of penalty.

17. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case, as also the legal position as noticed above, it is expedient that the garnishee order be quashed; the order dismissing the appeal be set aside and an opportunity be afforded to the petitioner to prosecute his appeal.

18. Hence, the following: