TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
Officers while passing adjudication orders as well as orders arising out of first appeal, interpret the sections in a very narrow sense while giving a benefit to the taxpayer whereas the interpretation happens to be so broad when it is on collection of tax or denial of ITC. The classic example is on condonation of delay while filing the first appeal under section 107. Even in cases where the appeal is filed within the condonable limit of one month, the same is mostly rejected by quoting the reason that there was no sufficient cause for the delay and appeal is rejected.
The division bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court on 29/09/2025 examined this issue and concluded that while the tax officials are bound by section 107, constitutional courts have powers to condone such delays, where there is sufficient cause.
Adjudication order was passed on 08/10/2023. The taxpayer was aggrieved and intended to prefer an appeal before the first appellate authority. The stipulated time limit under section 107 is 3 months with one month discretionary powers to the first appellate authority. The appeal was preferred on 28/02/2024 with a delay of 20 days beyond the time limit specified. This happened due the fact that the taxpayer was admitted in to a hospital during December 2023 which is evidenced by records.
However, the first appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation quoting that the authority did not have the power to condone any delay beyond four months. The High Court examined the facts and it was argued by Revenue before high court that the time limit specified under section 107 is over and hence this writ petition must be dismissed.
Though this delay is condonable by the high court by applying the limitation act, the high court in its capacity of constitutional court exercised the discretion. On being convinced that there existed sufficient cause in preferring the first appeal, the High Court appropriately set aside the OIA dated 05/07/2024 rejecting the appeal as passed by first appellate authority and directed the first appellate authority to consider the case a fresh after following the norms.
From now onwards, there is no such need to approach the jurisdictional High Court in similar matters as one could directly prefer the Second appeal before GSTAT now. The efforts of the GST Council and Central Government in operationalising the GSTAT are tremendous which is going to avoid the unnecessary writs under GST with the jurisdictional high courts.
All taxpayers aggrieved by the orders passed at the first appeal level must prefer the second appeal now itself so as to ensure that the appeals are heard as quickly as possible. The cases in which the first appeal was rejected on limitation ground must reach the GSTAT without omission of even a single case, as GSTAT will look in to the facts as well as legal provisions as against the tax officers who look solely only the revenue in to account.
So far as condonation of delay is concerned GSTAT shall look in to whether there existed sufficient cause in preferring the appeal and once convinced, most likely to condone such delay and hear the matter on merits as the delay is still condonable by the GSTAT as per the provisions contained in the limitation act.
It is expected that consequent to the operationalisation of GSTAT, the first appellate authorities start condoning all delays which are backed by sufficient cause, when filed within four months from the order in original communication date.