Exclusion of Time Spent in Pending High Court Proceedings for Computing GSTAT Appeal Limitation

The exclusion of the High Court pendency period flows from the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. You may seek it.

Yes, the assessee can legitimately seek exclusion of the period spent bona fide prosecuting the writ petition before the High Court, but I would not say that exclusion is automatic.

The legal foundation should be presented in this order:

Section 112, CGST Act
limitation and power to condone sufficient cause

Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963
applicability of Sections 4-24 to special-law limitation, subject to its conditions

Section 14, Limitation Act, 1963
exclusion of time spent prosecuting the earlier proceeding with due diligence and in good faith

Alternatively / additionally, Section 112 proviso
condonation on sufficient cause.

And the factual foundation is:

GSTAT was not constituted/available assessee did not sleep over its remedy assessee approached High Court writ remained pending GSTAT subsequently became available assessee seeks withdrawal with liberty immediately files GSTAT appeal.

That is a reasonably strong position, provided the chronology and the High Court order support it.

One caution

I would not presently state as a proposition of settled law that "Section 14 automatically excludes the entire period of the writ petition from GSTAT limitation." The exact applicability of Section 14 to the Section 112 CGST appeal requires judicial support and depends on the precise facts and the manner in which the writ proceedings were pursued/disposed of.

The safer litigation strategy is to plead Section 14 as the primary exclusion argument and Section 112's sufficient-cause condonation power as an independent alternative.

Have a look at this decision

2026 (9) TMI 402 - ALLAHBAD HIGH COURT - Slmg Beverages Private Limited Versus Assistant Commissioner State Tax Sector-3 And Another

Statutory appellate remedy before a functional GST Tribunal displaces writ proceedings while preserving limitation protection for prior litigation.

6. Case-Laws - HC : Availability of a statutory appellate remedy before the GST Appellate Tribunal requires a challenge to a GST penalty order to proceed through that forum once it becomes functional. A writ petition entertained solely because the appellate forum was non-functional need not continue after the Tribunal is operational. The petitioner may be relegated to the Tribunal with liberty to file an appeal within the stipulated period, and the Tribunal should not object to limitation for the period during which the writ petition was pursued. The appeal is to be decided in accordance with law after considering any interim order.

It is pertinent to mention that prior to the constitution of GSTAT Chandigarh, Punjab and Haryana Court Chandigarh admitted only those writ petitions against the Order of the First Appellate Authority wherein :

(i) Pre-deposit for filing appeal with GSTAT was made as per Section 112(8) and

(ii) Period prescribed for filing appeal under Section 112(1) was not expired.

This procedure/practice might have been followed by the jurisdictional High Court in your case.

Check the facts of your case.