https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783271 HC held that the First Appellate Authority erred in treating the appeal as time-barred. The order-in-original dated 24.01.2024 was communicated on 01.02.2024, which was to be treated as "Day Zero" for limitation purposes, entitling the petitioner to the extended one-month period under Section 107(4) CGST Act. On this computation, the appeal filed on 01.06.2024 was within the permissible period. The finding of delay and consequent rejection of the appeal was therefore unsustainable. HC set aside the impugned appellate order dated 19.06.2025 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the parties. en-us Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783271 HC held that the First Appellate Authority erred in treating the appeal as time-barred. The order-in-original dated 24.01.2024 was communicated on 01.02.2024, which was to be treated as "Day Zero" for limitation purposes, entitling the petitioner to the extended one-month period under Section 107(4) CGST Act. On this computation, the appeal filed on 01.06.2024 was within the permissible period. The finding of delay and consequent rejection of the appeal was therefore unsustainable. HC set aside the impugned appellate order dated 19.06.2025 and remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits, after granting due opportunity of hearing to the parties. Case-Laws GST Fri, 28 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783271