2026 (8) TMI 1447

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r(s) No. 1,2: Mr Uchit N Sheth (7336). For the Respondent(s) No. 1: Mr Deepak N Khanchandani (7781). For the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4: Mr Parth Patel, AGP.   For the Respondent(s) No. 3,4: Mr Utkarsh R Sharma (6157).   COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA) 1. Since a common issue is involved in the present group of petitions, Special Civil Application No. 1116 of 2025 is taken up as the lead matter, and the present group of petitions is decided by this common judgment and order. 2. Rule. Learned advocates appear and waive service of notice on behalf of the respective respondents. 3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....024, challenging both the original order rejecting the refund claim dated 03.10.2022 and the order rejecting the rectification application dated 14.09.2023. The said appeal came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority by the impugned order dated 31.05.2024, solely on the ground of limitation. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth, appearing for the petitioners, while placing reliance upon the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed in Special Civil Application No.9540 of 2025 on an analogous issue, has submitted that the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation. It is submitted that the period of limitation was required to be computed from the date of the order rejecting the rectification application i.e. 14.09.20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing that the Appellate Authority had no power to condone the delay beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(4) of the GST Act. 13. The Appellate Authority, while examining the appeal, computed the period of limitation from the date of the original order dated 03.10.2022 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. It is not in dispute that, while filing the appeal, the petitioners has brought on record all the relevant facts concerning the original proceedings, the remand, the subsequent order dated 03.10.2022, the filing of the rectification application and its rejection by order dated 14.09.2023. 14. At this stage, we may incorporate the observations made by this Court in the judgment dated 29.01.2026 passed in Special Civil Applicat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appeal is beyond the statutory limits of three months plus one month i.e. beyond the period of 120 days, the appeal having been time barred, is rejected as the appellate authority does not have power to condone the delay. 7. It is true that the appellate authority does have any power for condoning the delay if the appeal is filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days and this Court also in catena of decisions has also held that the High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot condone the delay, if it is beyond the period of 120 days. However, in the present case, the limitation would start running from 20.03.2025 on the rejection of the rectification application filed by the petition....