The Gujarat High Court recently addressed a case involving a late GST appeal filed by Harsh Deepak Shah against the Union of India and others. The petitioner sought to challenge orders dated April 2024 and May 2025 under the GST Act. However, the appeal was filed six days beyond the 120-day limit stipulated by Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the appellate authority deemed the appeal time-barred. The petitioner then appealed to the High Court for delay condonation under Article 226, citing substantial GST payments and referencing the Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd case.
The central issue was whether the High Court could use Article 226 to condone such a delay, exceeding the statutory period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court ruled against the petitioner, emphasizing that neither the appellate authority nor the High Court holds the power to extend the 120-day limit. The decision was supported by Supreme Court judgments, including Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., which underscored that Article 226 should not undermine legislative intent.
Read More: GST - Delhi High court: Considering severe air pollution in Delhi, High Court urged GST Council to reconsider 18% GST on air purifiers and consider a concessional 5% rate [Order attached]
The court concluded that once the petitioner utilized the statutory appellate remedy, they could not reopen the Order-in-Original through writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs, reinforcing the adherence to statutory limitations over judicial discretion in such matters.
Order date: 24 December 2025
Parties: Harsh Deepak Shah v. Union of India & Ors.
Facts -
- The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original dated 24.04.2024 and Order-in-Appeal dated 30.05.2025 under the GST Act. The statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was filed with a delay of six days beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days.
- The appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay under Article 226, relying on Panoli Intermediate (India) Pvt. Ltd and contending that substantial GST amounts had already been paid.
Issue -
- Whether the High Court can, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, condone delay in filing a GST appeal beyond the maximum period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017?
Order -
- The Gujarat High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that neither the appellate authority nor the High Court has power to condone delay beyond the statutorily prescribed maximum period of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
- Relying heavily on the Supreme Court judgment in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner and ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., the Court clarified that Article 226 cannot be exercised in a manner that defeats legislative intent.
- The Court further held that once the petitioner had availed the statutory appellate remedy, it could not seek reopening of the Order-in-Original through writ jurisdiction.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
