https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94988 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, and the appeal filed on 01.06.2024 was within the permissible extended period of one month under Section 107(4) CGST Act, 2017, treating the date of communication as Day Zero. Relying on the Delhi HC view, the court held the appeal to be within limitation and not requiring condonation of delay. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 19.06.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits after granting hearing to the parties. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94988 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, and the appeal filed on 01.06.2024 was within the permissible extended period of one month under Section 107(4) CGST Act, 2017, treating the date of communication as Day Zero. Relying on the Delhi HC view, the court held the appeal to be within limitation and not requiring condonation of delay. Consequently, the impugned appellate order dated 19.06.2025 was set aside and the matter remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits after granting hearing to the parties. Highlights GST Fri, 12 Dec 2025 08:55:17 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94988