Limitation in GST appeals must be decided first, with a chance to explain delay before dismissal or merits review.

An appellate authority under the GST mechanism must first determine limitation and, where delay is alleged or apparent, give the appellant an opportunity to explain the delay and seek condonation before dismissing the appeal or examining the merits. Dismissing a statutory appeal as time-barred without first allowing that opportunity is not justified. Where the limitation issue has not been properly considered, the appropriate course is to set aside the order and remit the matter for a fresh decision on limitation, and then on merits if the appeal is found to be in time or the delay is condoned.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred without first giving the appellant an opportunity to explain the alleged delay; (ii) whether the matter required remand to enable the appellate authority to decide limitation before entering into the merits of the appeal.

Issue (i): whether the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the statutory appeal as time-barred without first giving the appellant an opportunity to explain the alleged delay.

Analysis: The appeal had been filed under the GST appellate mechanism, and the controversy was whether it was within limitation or required condonation. The record showed that the appellant's representative was heard on merits, yet no prior objection on limitation was raised by the appellate authority. Before rejecting an appeal on limitation, the authority must scrutinise the filing and, if delay is noticed, afford an opportunity to explain the delay and seek condonation. The opportunity to address limitation must come from the appellate authority and not merely from the electronic portal.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal on limitation without first affording such opportunity was not justified and was against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the matter required remand to enable the appellate authority to decide limitation before entering into the merits of the appeal.

Analysis: Since the appellant asserted that the appeal had been filed within time and had not been given a chance to explain that position, the impugned order could not be sustained. The proper course was to set aside the order and remand the matter so that the appellate authority could first decide the question of delay and, if necessary, consider condonation in accordance with law before examining the substantive appeal.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded to the appellate authority for a fresh decision on limitation and thereafter on merits if the appeal was found to be in time or the delay was condoned.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate authority must first determine limitation and, where delay is apparent or alleged, must afford the appellant an opportunity to explain and seek condonation before dismissing the appeal or proceeding to the merits.

---