GST appeal limitation bars writ interference once the statutory maximum condonable period expires and the challenge is revived late.

A taxing statute that fixes a three-month appeal period with only a further one-month condonable extension leaves no residual power to revive an appeal after the aggregate 120-day limit expires. The Gujarat HC applied this limitation scheme under the GST law and held that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar or enlarge the period for filing a GST appeal. It also noted that a party that chose the appellate route and failed to prosecute it cannot later seek merits-based review of the cancellation order or the show-cause notice. The writ challenge was therefore not maintainable and the appellate and cancellation orders were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court could interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and extend the statutory period for filing a GST appeal beyond the maximum condonable limit under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

Analysis: The appeal against cancellation of registration had been filed after an inordinate delay far beyond the statutory period. Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 permits an appeal within three months and confers only a limited further period of one month on showing sufficient cause. The statutory discretion of the appellate authority thus ends after the aggregate period of 120 days. The Court applied the settled principle that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to neutralise a legislative limitation scheme or to revive an appeal that the statute does not permit to be entertained. It also held that, after choosing the appellate remedy and failing to prosecute it, the petitioner could not ask the Court to examine the merits of the cancellation order or the show-cause notice.

Conclusion: The High Court could not condone the delay beyond the statutory maximum or interfere with the appellate order. The writ petition was not maintainable on merits and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory limitation under the GST law was treated as binding, and the challenge to the cancellation and appellate orders did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a taxing statute prescribes a fixed appeal period with a limited condonable extension, the High Court cannot, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, enlarge that period or entertain a challenge to the underlying order after the statutory maximum has expired.

---