Limitation under the CGST Act runs from communication of the order, and a time-bar dismissal needs a hearing and proper finding.

Limitation for an appeal under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act runs from communication of the order, not merely from the date of the order. An appellate authority cannot reject an appeal as time barred without first determining the date of communication and without granting an opportunity of hearing. Applying that principle, the High Court found the dismissal unsustainable, set aside the impugned orders, and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal as time barred without determining the date of communication of the order and without granting an opportunity of hearing.

Analysis: The limitation under Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 runs from the date of communication of the order, not merely from the date of the order. The appellate order counted limitation from the date of the order and recorded no finding on when the order was communicated to the petitioner. The appeal was also dismissed without affording a hearing.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal was unsustainable. The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief by way of remand, and the appeal will be reconsidered on merits by the appellate authority.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purposes of Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, limitation commences from communication of the order, and an appeal cannot be rejected as time barred without addressing that date and providing a hearing.

---