The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court addressed the case of Manzoor Ahmad Bhat, who sought to challenge the rejection of his GST appeal due to a delay in filing. The appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority as it was filed 317 days late, past the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Bhat argued that his delay was due to his father's serious illness, which required his constant attention and travel, and also claimed a lack of formal communication of the adjudication order by the department.
The Court had to determine if Bhat's situation constituted "exceptional circumstances" that would justify condoning the delay under Article 226 of the Constitution. Referring to a prior judgment, the Court reiterated the strict nature of the statutory limitation under the GST framework, emphasizing that these limitations cannot be easily relaxed. The Court noted that its extraordinary powers under Article 226 are reserved for truly rare and exceptional cases, and personal hardships do not suffice to bypass statutory limitations.
Read More: Himachal Pradesh High Court: Once either Central or State GST authority initiates adjudicatory proceedings on a dispute, parallel proceedings by the other authority are barred; Diected both Central and State GST authorities to communicate with each other and resolve [Order attached]
Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court found inconsistencies in Bhat's explanation, particularly the medical records, which did not substantiate the claim of his father's hospitalization during the relevant period. Additionally, the Court pointed out that the GST order was served through the GST Portal, indicating Bhat was aware of it. The Court concluded that the father's illness did not prevent Bhat from filing the appeal within the required timeframe and thus did not constitute an "exceptional circumstance." Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Order Date - 05 May 2026
Parties: Manzoor Ahmad Bhat Vs Union Territory of J&K and Others
Facts -
- Manzoor Ahmad Bhat challenged the orders dated 20.08.2024 and 18.11.2025, whereby his GST appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation.
- They argued that he could not file the appeal within time because his father was seriously ill and hospitalized during the relevant period, forcing him to continuously manage treatment and travel between hospital and home.
- Also claimed that there was no formal communication of the adjudication order by the department, due to which immediate steps for filing the appeal could not be taken.
- They filed the appeal after a delay of 317 days, seeking condonation of delay by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issue -
- Whether the petitioner had shown “exceptional circumstances” sufficient for the High Court to condone a 317-day delay in filing an appeal beyond the limitation period?
Order -
- The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Jatinder Singh v. Union Territory of J&K and Ors. and reiterated that the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot entertain an appeal filed beyond four months from the date of communication of the order. The statutory limitation under the GST framework is strict and cannot ordinarily be relaxed.
- The Bench clarified that although the High Court possesses extraordinary equitable powers under Article 226, such powers can only be exercised in rare and exceptional situations. Mere hardship or inconvenience does not automatically justify bypassing statutory limitation provisions enacted under fiscal legislation.
- The Court closely examined the petitioner’s explanation and found inconsistencies in the medical record produced. While the petitioner claimed hospitalization of his father during August 2024, the attached medical documents only reflected private consultations between 2021 and April 2024, weakening the credibility of the explanation offered for the prolonged delay.
- The Court further observed that the GST order had already been served through the GST Portal and was therefore within the petitioner’s knowledge. It concluded that the father’s illness was not of such a grave nature as to completely prevent the petitioner from filing the appeal within time, and hence the case did not qualify as an “exceptional circumstance” warranting interference under Article 226. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
