The Orissa High Court quashed an appellate order that had rejected a GST appeal as time-barred, holding that the Appellate Authority had incorrectly calculated the limitation period under Section 107 of the GST Act.
A Division Bench, including Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo and Justice M.S. Raman, remanded the case to the appellate authority for reconsideration of the taxpayer’s application for condonation of delay.
The issue has emerged after the passing of the adjudication order u/s 73 of the GST Act against M/s. Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd. on 15 October 2025 for the tax period April 2022 to March 2023. The taxpayer is not satisfied with the order, and thus, it submitted a plea on 13 February 2026. The appellate authority has not accepted the plea because it was filed after the maximum condonable period mentioned under section 107 of the GST Act.
The applicant before the HC claimed that the appellate authority had incorrectly computed the limitation period. It was claimed that the adjudication order was communicated on 15 October 2025 and, as per Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, the date of communication should not be included while calculating the limitation.
As per that, the three-month limitation period lapsed on 15 January 2026, and the further condonable period of one month expired on 15 February 2026. Since the appeal was filed on 13 February 2026, it was within the outer limit specified u/s 107(4) of the GST Act.
“The Revenue did not dispute the relevant dates but argued that the applicant had an alternative statutory remedy and could pursue the case in accordance with the law.”
“The expression ‘three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated’ requires exclusion of the date of communication and computation of limitation from the succeeding day.”
The High Court analysed the norms of Section 107 of the GST Act along with Section 9 of the General Clauses Act and referred to various judicial precedents dealing with the calculation of limitation.
The Court repeated that the term “month” refers to a calendar month rather than a fixed period of 30 days, and that the first day from which limitation is to be reckoned should not be included.
The Court, on applying such norms, ruled that the appellate authority had committed an error in considering the appeal as being beyond the condonable period. It said that the delay was merely 29 days, and the appeal had been submitted within the maximum period during which delay could lawfully be condoned.
The Court mentioned that the applicant had submitted a response to the SCN issued by the appellate authority specifying the delay. At the time of rejecting the appeal, the authority wrongly stated that no reply had been filed and failed to acknowledge the explanation already on record.
“Non-consideration of the explanation filed by the petitioner and treating it as if no reply was on record constituted an error apparent on the face of the record.”
The High Court ruled that the computation of the limitation period and the failure to consider the petitioner’s reply both invalidated the appellate order. Consequently, it set aside the order dated March 23, 2026. The case was remanded to the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal), Central Zone-I, Cuttack, to review the petitioner’s explanation for the 29-day delay and to decide on the application for condonation in accordance with the law.
The Court made it clear that it had not mentioned any opinion on the merits of the appeal or the condonation application and instructed the Appellate Authority to proceed independently in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.
| Case Title | Ms Mahesh Value Products Pvt. Ltd V/S Chief Commissioner of CT & GST and Others |
| Case No. | WP(C) No.17373 of 2026 |
| Counsel For Appellant | Mr. Madhab Lal Agarwal, Advocate |
| Counsel For Respondent | Mr Sourav Tibrewal, Additional Standing Counsel for CT & GST Organisation |
| Orissa High Court | Read Order |
