High Court Exercises Writ Power to Condone One-Day Delay

High Court Exercises Writ Power to Condone One-Day Delay in GST Appeal Caused by Bereavement

Issue

Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone a one-day delay beyond the statutory condonable period under Section 107 of the GST Act to prevent gross injustice and ensure a decision on merits.

Facts

The Assessing Authority (Circle Budgam) passed an adverse demand order against the assessee under the GST Act.
Under Section 107 of the CGST/JKGST Act, the statute prescribes a three-month limitation period to file an appeal and grants the Appellate Authority power to condone a delay of up to one additional month only.
The assessee filed the statutory appeal beyond the three-month period and exceeded the one-month condonable limit by just one day.
The assessee cited the death of his sister as the cause for the minor delay in filing the appeal.
The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal as time-barred due to lack of statutory jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the additional one-month period.
The assessee filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking setting aside of the rejection order and condonation of delay to enable an adjudication on merits.

Decision

The High Court recognized that while the statutory Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction under Section 107 to condone delays beyond the statutory outer limit of one month, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 remains intact.
The High Court held that rigid application of procedural limitation rules causing gross injustice can be remedied through constitutional writ powers.
The High Court observed that dismissing an appeal for a mere one-day delay caused by personal bereavement without hearing the matter on merits would be disproportionately harsh.
The High Court set aside the rejection order passed by the Appellate Authority, condoned the one-day delay, and restored the appeal for decision on its merits.

Key Takeaways

Constitutional Writ Powers vs. Statutory Limits: Although Section 107 restricts the Appellate Authority from condoning delays beyond 30 days, High Courts can exercise Article 226 power in exceptional cases of genuine hardship to condone marginal delays.
Avoidance of Hyper-Technical Dismissals: Minor delays caused by human tragedies (such as bereavement in the family) warrant a sympathetic judicial approach to ensure substantive justice overrides procedural rigidity.
Restoration for Decision on Merits: Tax disputes should ideally be decided on their substantive legal and factual merits rather than being terminated on preliminary procedural defaults.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

New Kabady Shop

State of Texes Department of Th. Its Commissioner^*

Sanjay Dhar and SANJAY PARIHAR, JJ.

WP(C) No. 593 of 2026
CM No. 1521 of 2026

JUNE 2, 2026

Vikas Malik and Mushtaq Dar, Advs. for the Petitioner. Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged Order dated 24^th of June, 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sales Tax Department, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax, Act through online mode on 6^th of June, 2025 against Demand Order No. ZD010225002391A passed by the Assessing Authority, Circle, Budgam, Kashmir, on 5^th of February, 2025, came to be rejected on the ground that the same had not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation under the GST Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.

3. It is not in dispute that the appeal against Order dated 5^th of February, 2025 passed by the Assessing Authority was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority on 6th of June, 2025. As per the provisions contained in Section 107 (1) of the GST Act, an appeal against an order passed under the said Act by the adjudicating Authority can be made before the Appellate Authority within a period of three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act, however, vests jurisdiction with the Appellate Authority to condone the delay in presenting the appeal to the extent of a further period of one month, meaning thereby, that beyond the said period of one month, the Appellate Authority does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

4. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period of three months plus the further period of one month which is eligible to be condoned by the Appellate Authority. In fact, there was delay of only one day in filing the appeal in the present case. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether, in such circumstances, this Court can come to the rescue of the petitioner.

5. In the above context, reliance is being placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court in case titled Multi Trading Agencies v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh)/bearing WP(C) No. 1898 of 2024 decided on 17^th of October, 2024, wherein it has been held that the prohibition contained in Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017 to condone the delay beyond one month cannot come in the way of the Constitutional Courts in exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to render substantial justice. The Court further observed that while the statutory prohibition is a strong consideration to be kept in mind, yet it does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to condone the delay if it is of the opinion that application of the delay barring statute would result in gross injustice.

6. A similar view has been taken by this Court in case titled Parshotam Electronics v. UT of J & K 112 GST 261 (Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh)/bearing WP (C) No. 2909/2024, decided on 29^th of September, 2025.

7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as already stated hereinbefore, there was only one day’s delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed extendable period of limitation. In the application made by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, it has been pleaded that the sister of the petitioner had passed away, as a result whereof he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.

8. Having regard to the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner coupled with the fact that there was a delay of only one day in filing the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that in case appeal of the petitioner is not heard on merits, it would work harshly against him. The petitioner needs to be given a chance to present his case before the Appellate Authority in order to meet the ends of justice.

9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision on merits in accordance with law.

10. Disposed of along with connected CM.