https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100136 A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections. en-us Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530 Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100136 A High Court considered preliminary objections to departmental appeals against an advance ruling and upheld their maintainability. It held that the 90-day period for passing the appellate order under Section 101(2) is directory, operating as an outer time limit and not a jurisdictional bar that nullifies the appeal on expiry. It also accepted the actual dates of communication for limitation purposes, found condonation competent where filed within the extended period, held that separate CGST and SGST officers had statutory appellate locus, and treated manual filing as a procedural issue not defeating the appeal. The Court further rejected estoppel and natural justice objections. Highlights GST Tue, 26 May 2026 08:24:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=100136