Strict GST appeal limitation bars delayed filing, while writ relief for condonation remains confined to exceptional cases.

The GST appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit under the limitation scheme, because the prescribed period is mandatory and leaves no discretion to extend time beyond what the statute permits. High Court interference under Article 226 remains available only in exceptional cases to prevent gross injustice, but routine delay in filing an appeal will not justify such relief where the reasons for delay are not extraordinary. The document therefore states that statutory limitation governs the appellate forum, while writ intervention is confined to rare cases of compelling injustice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate authority under Section 107 of the J&K State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can condone delay beyond the prescribed outer limit for filing an appeal. (ii) Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct condonation of delay despite the statutory restriction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate authority under Section 107 of the J&K State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 can condone delay beyond the prescribed outer limit for filing an appeal.

Analysis: The limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under the GST regime is mandatory for the appellate authority. Once the appeal is filed beyond the statutorily permissible period, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to entertain it or extend limitation beyond what the statute permits. The statutory scheme does not leave the appellate authority with discretion to condone delay beyond the prescribed limit.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The appellate authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory limit.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can direct condonation of delay despite the statutory restriction.

Analysis: Limitation provisions are procedural, and a statutory bar on condonation is a strong consideration, but it does not completely exclude the High Court's extraordinary jurisdiction. Such jurisdiction may be exercised only in exceptional cases where refusal to intervene would cause gross injustice. On the facts presented, the reasons offered for the delay were not exceptional or extraordinary enough to justify interference.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The High Court may intervene only in exceptional cases, and no such case was made out here.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal-based challenge was upheld because the delay could not be condoned either under the statutory appellate framework or on the facts warranting extraordinary writ intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute prescribes a strict limitation regime for GST appeals, the appellate authority cannot extend time beyond the permissible limit, and writ intervention to condone delay is available only in exceptional cases to prevent gross injustice.

---