TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 2004
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, produced at Annexure-B; iii. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Order-in-Original dated 08.01.2025 bearing No.DCCT/Audit-4/HBL/GST/202425/B- passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-C; iv. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Show Cause Notice dated 28.11.2024 bearing Reference No. - ZD291124155506C and detailed Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 bearing DCCT/Audit4/HBL/GST/2024-25/B- issued by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexures - D and E, respectively; v. Declare that the entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Section 73 of the CGST Act in relation to the period FY 20202021, culminating in the impugned orders, are without jurisdiction, null and void; vi. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the Notice No.B-834 dated 12.03.2026 issued by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-L. vii. Strictly in the alternative and without prejudice, remand the matter back to Respondent No.2 for consideration afresh in accordance wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e order-in-original dated 08.01.2025 as well as the garnishee order dated 12.03.2026. 7. It is a vehement contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not aware of the order-in-original dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure-C to the writ petition) and that immediately upon learning regarding the same, it made an application for rectification. That consequent to the rejection of the rectification application, the appeal was filed which was dismissed as being barred by time. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on the ground that the limitation for filing of appeal under the provisions of the Act was a period of 90 days and that the appellate authority could condone the delay for a period upto 30 days. That since the appeal was filed beyond the condonable period of 30 days, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay the tax that has been levied in terms of the original order dated 08.01.2025 and that the appeal filed by the petitioner has not been adjudicated on its merits. It is further contended that the petitioner had also made the pre-deposit along with the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court, in the case of Shri. Vishal Durgadas Jaiwant vs. The Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes [W.P.No.100561/2026, dated 30.01.2026] while considering a fact situation in which an appeal filed under Section 107 of the Act had been dismissed as barred by limitation, held as under: "7. The above reasons disclose that the petitioner had acted under bona fide belief that the mismatch in the Input Tax Credit would be rectified by the supplier, that a legal notice was issued to the supplier, and that the delay was occasioned due to lack of professional assistance and limited awareness of procedural requirements. The explanation, in the present facts, cannot be said to be lacking bona fides. 8. No doubt Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 prescribes the period within an appeal to be filed. However, adopting a justice oriented approach, particularly when the justification offered is reasonable and when the matter deserves consideration on merits, in the peculiar facts and circumstance of this case the delay in preferring the appeal deserves to be condoned and the matter requires consideration on merits by the appellate authority having regard to the circler issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11.2.......... 11.3. Moreover, the appellate authority under the CGST Act is a pure creature of statute, deriving both its jurisdiction and its limits from Section 107. Where the legislature, in its wisdom, has consciously conferred a limited discretion to condone delay and has simultaneously circumscribed that discretion by prescribing an express outer boundary of one additional month, the statutory authority is bound hand and foot by such limitation. It is not open to a statutory authority to enlarge its own jurisdiction by importing powers from the Limitation Act, 1963, in the absence of a clear legislative mandate. 11.4. Section 107(4) thus operates as a jurisdictional cap, not a mere procedural guideline. The discretion of the appellate authority stands expressly exhausted upon expiry of the additional one month contemplated therein. Any attempt to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to travel beyond this statutorily ordained boundary would amount to rewriting the provision and arrogating to the authority a power which the legislature has consciously withheld. 11.5. The distinction, therefore, is not one of sympathy or sufficiency of cause, but ....