https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765757 The HC held that the appellate authority erred in interpreting Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court clarified that "three months" means three calendar months, not 90 days, and "one month" means one calendar month, not 30 days. The appeal filed on 26.04.2024 was within the extended one-month period (until 27.04.2024) after the initial three-month limitation expired on 27.03.2024. The appellate authority should have considered the appellant's cause for delay instead of mechanically applying day-count interpretation. The application was allowed, correcting the appellate authority's misinterpretation of the statutory limitation periods. en-us Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Feb 2025 09:12:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765757 The HC held that the appellate authority erred in interpreting Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The court clarified that "three months" means three calendar months, not 90 days, and "one month" means one calendar month, not 30 days. The appeal filed on 26.04.2024 was within the extended one-month period (until 27.04.2024) after the initial three-month limitation expired on 27.03.2024. The appellate authority should have considered the appellant's cause for delay instead of mechanically applying day-count interpretation. The application was allowed, correcting the appellate authority's misinterpretation of the statutory limitation periods. Case-Laws GST Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765757