Limitation in GST appeals should not defeat a remedy where rectification was first pursued and the appeal followed promptly after rejection.

An appeal under the CGST Act was held not to be rejected as time-barred where the assessee first sought rectification of the original assessment order within the statutory period and then filed the appeal within three months of rejection of that rectification request. The continuous pursuit of the statutory remedy provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, and a purely technical approach to limitation was unwarranted. The appellate authority could also have allowed amendment of the memorandum of appeal if necessary. The limitation-based rejection was therefore unsustainable, and the matter was remitted for decision on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 was wrongly rejected as time-barred despite the assessee having first pursued rectification against the original assessment order and thereafter filing the appeal within three months of rejection of the rectification application.

Analysis: The appeal was filed after the assessee had promptly sought rectification of the original assessment order within the statutory period, and the rectification application was decided only later. The filing of the appeal within three months from the rectification rejection showed continuous pursuit of the statutory remedy and furnished a satisfactory explanation for not appealing earlier. In these circumstances, a purely technical approach to limitation was unwarranted, and the appellate authority could have permitted suitable amendment of the memo of appeal if needed.

Conclusion: The rejection of the appeal on limitation was unsustainable, and the matter had to be sent back for decision on merits in accordance with law.

---