GST appellate limitation relief under a beneficial notification may apply despite a rigid cut-off date, subject to conditions.

A GST appellate limitation issue arose where an appeal was rejected as time-barred by five days, and the analysis noted that section 107(4) of the Bihar GST Act allows only the prescribed appeal period plus a limited condonation period, with no further power to extend time. It further explained that Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax was intended to provide a special procedure for appeals rejected solely on limitation grounds, and that a rigid 31.03.2023 cut-off would exclude closely proximate orders and defeat the notification's beneficial object. On that reasoning, the notification was treated as applicable where the underlying order was passed within three months before the notification, subject to satisfaction of its conditions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, whose appeal had been rejected as time-barred by five days, could be extended the benefit of Notification No. 53/2023-Central Tax despite the order appealed against having been passed after the notification's cut-off date, and whether the rejection order should be set aside for fresh consideration under the notification.

Analysis: The limitation scheme under section 107(4) of the Bihar Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an appeal within the prescribed period and a further period of one month for a delayed appeal, and there is no power to enlarge limitation beyond the statutory outer limit. The notification issued under section 148 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 created a special procedure for certain appeals rejected solely on limitation grounds, but the Court found that the rigid cut-off of 31.03.2023 would exclude even orders passed shortly before the notification, including the petitioner's order dated 27.04.2023. The Court treated the notification as beneficial in nature and held that the date restriction should not defeat its purpose where the order was passed within three months before the notification, subject to compliance with the notification's conditions.

Conclusion: The petitioner was held entitled to seek the benefit of the notification, the appellate rejection order was liable to be set aside, and the matter was to go back to the first Appellate Authority for fresh consideration if the notification conditions were satisfied.

---