Delhi HC: GST Appeal Deadlines U/S 107(1) and 107(4) Are Absolute and Non-Extendable

The Delhi High Court in a judgment held that the legal timeline to file a plea as given u/s 107(1) and the additional one-month condonable period u/s 107(4), is absolute and cannot be extended.

The matter engaged various businesses, including Addichem Speciality LLP, JM Fleet Management Pvt Ltd, and Enia Architects. The dispute has emerged when the applicants cannot submit the plea within the said three-month duration including an additional one-month condonable duration u/s 107(4) of the CGST Act.

The counsel of the applicant claimed that unusual cases like pandemic-related disruptions, loss of important personnel, and lockdowns prevented them from filing timely appeals. The counsel of the applicant claimed that the retrospective cancellation of the GST registration impacts the prior transactions and directed to the unjustified tax demands on buyers.

It was asserted via the counsel that the rejection of the pleas merely on the limitation basis breaches the norms of natural justice as many of them have filed the replies before to the Show Cause Notices (SCN).

The counsel of the GST department has opposed the CGST act specifies a tightened limitation period permitting just a one-month extension beyond the legal 3 month appeal period. The counsel of the department claimed that the appellate authority does not have any jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond this additional period.

The department counsel relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) and Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. (2009), which carried that tax laws require strict adherence to limitation periods. A bench led by Justice Yashwant Varma and Justice Dharmesh Sharma led that courts cannot override statutory limitation periods under section 107 of the CGST Act.

The court referenced the Supreme Court directives and held that taxation laws should be interpreted and that permitting extensions beyond legal limits would create suspense in tax administration. It was ruled by the court that the pleas were furnished beyond the specified limitation period so the Appellate Authority was correct in rejecting them.

The court mentioned that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to extend statutory time limits and that rigid compliance with tax laws is required to maintain compliance and administrative efficiency.