The Orissa High Court addressed the issue of appeal limitation in the case of M/s. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and Others. The company received an adjudication order under Section 73 of the GST Act on October 15, 2025, and filed an appeal on February 13, 2026. They argued that excluding the date of communication, the delay was only 29 days, within the one-month condonable period allowed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, treating the delay as 31 days.
The Court examined whether the Appellate Authority's decision to reject the appeal as time-barred was justified. It concluded that the date of communication should be excluded when calculating the appeal period under Section 107 of the GST Act, as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. This meant the limitation period began the day after communication. The Court also clarified that "month" in limitation provisions refers to a calendar month, not a fixed 30-day period.
Read More: Kerala High Court - Cross-charging credit without ISD registration prior to April 2025 could not be treated as a violation, being transaction as revenue-neutral [Order attached]
The Court found that the Appellate Authority had miscalculated the limitation period, resulting in an incorrect conclusion that the appeal was beyond the condonable period. The delay was actually within the permissible limit. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner's explanation for the delay was ignored, which constituted a procedural error and a denial of fair opportunity.
Order Date - 05 June 2026
Parties: M/s. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd Vs Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and Others
Facts -
- M/s. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. received an adjudication order under Section 73 of the GST Act on 15.10.2025 relating to the tax period April 2022 to March 2023.
- They filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal) on 13.02.2026 challenging the adjudication order.
- They argued that after excluding the date of communication, the delay in filing the appeal was only 29 days and was within the additional one-month condonable period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act.
- Also submitted a reply explaining the delay, but the Appellate Authority ignored the explanation and rejected the appeal as time-barred by treating the delay as 31 days.
Issue -
- Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the GST appeal as barred by limitation by including the date of communication while calculating the appeal period under Section 107 of the GST Act.
Order -
- The Court held that while computing limitation under Section 107 of the GST Act, the date on which the adjudication order is communicated must be excluded in view of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Therefore, limitation commenced from the following day and not from the date of communication itself.
- The Court observed that the term "month" used in limitation provisions refers to a calendar month and not a fixed period of 30 days. Accordingly, the statutory period of three months and the additional condonable period of one month must be calculated based on calendar months.
- The Court found that the Appellate Authority had incorrectly computed the limitation period and wrongly concluded that the appeal was delayed beyond the condonable period. On proper calculation, the delay was only 29 days, which fell within the statutory power of condonation.
- The Court further observed that the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice explaining the delay, and the same was duly acknowledged. Ignoring such reply and proceeding as if no explanation had been filed amounted to a clear error on the face of the record and denial of a fair opportunity.
