Writ relief despite time-bar: disputed service under GST led the High Court to permit the appeal on merits.

The appellate authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot extend statutory limitation beyond the prescribed period, but writ jurisdiction under Article 226 may be invoked to prevent a litigant from being left remediless in appropriate cases. Where service of the order was disputed and the order was not properly communicated in the manner contemplated by Section 169, the High Court accepted that the taxpayer should be allowed to pursue the appeal on merits. The delay in filing the statutory appeal was therefore condoned, and the appeal was permitted to be revived before the Appellate Authority for adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal beyond the period under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be condoned in writ jurisdiction where service of the order was disputed and the petitioner sought an opportunity to pursue the appeal on merits.

Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Authority had been rejected as time-barred under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Court reaffirmed that the appellate authority could not extend the statutory limitation beyond the period prescribed by the Act. At the same time, it held that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough to prevent a litigant from being left remediless in appropriate cases. Since the order was not properly communicated in the manner contemplated by Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the Court accepted that the petitioner should be allowed to pursue the appeal on merits.

Conclusion: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the petitioner was permitted to revive the appeal before the Appellate Authority for adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

---