DECEMBER 10, 2025

GST Appeals - High Court Resets Time

By Vijay Kumar

IS calculation of time (for anything official) taught in our tax academy? At least one Appellate Authority had to be schooled by a High Court.

A taxpayer armed with a Supreme Court order, filed a refund claim. The learned Proper Officer was pleased to reject the claim vide Order-in-Original dated 24.01.2024. The Taxpayer filed an appeal on 01.06.2024.

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 19.06.2025, citing a "delay of one day."

Yes, one day! And yes, without correctly computing, and without granting a personal hearing.

So, what does a taxpayer do? You guessed it - march to the High Court.

The Petitioner/taxpayer submitted in the High Court:

1. The Appellate Authority has grossly erred while calculating the period of limitation.

2. Order-in-Original passed on 24.01.2024 was communicated on 01.02.2024.

3. The period of 3 months would thus expire on 01.05.2024.

4. The Petitioner specifically pleaded before Appellate Authority that appeal could not be filed within the period of three months as petitioner was abroad. However, this aspect was not even touched by the Appellate Authority and appeal was incorrectly dismissed as time barred.

5. It has incorrectly been held that the last date of filing the appeal could be extended only up to 30.05.2024 whereas appeal was filed on 01.06.2024.

6. Last date for filing of appeal was 01.06.2024 and the same was filed on that date.

The Counsel for the Revenue did not deny that the calculation by the Appellate Authority was not entirely correct as the date of passing of order has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation.

The Appellate Authority in his Order had stated:

In the present case, as per APL 01, the date of communication of the order, is 01.02.2024, therefore, the appellant was required to file the appeal on or before 30.04.2024 in terms of section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Further, if section 107(4) of the CGST Act is invoked in the instant case then the last date of the filing appeal could be extended till 30.05.2024. However, the instant appeal is filed on 01.06.2024 with a delay of 1 day which is beyond the permissible limit. Therefore, it is clear that the appeal is filed beyond the limit of three months and further, even beyond the extendable period of one month as laid down in Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Hence, I hold that the appeal is liable to be rejected on the sole reason of delayed filing.

The High Court noted:

1. It is apparent that First Appellate Authority has erred in holding that appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation.

2. Order-in-original is dated 24.01.2024 and admittedly communicated on 01.02.2024.

3. The appeal was filed on 01.06.2024.

4. It appears that Appellate Authority accepted the explanation offered by petitioner and thus calculated the period of limitation. Thus, petitioner is held entitled to the extended period of one month in terms of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017.

5. It is pertinent to note that the day on which the order is passed/communicated has to be treated as Day Zero (0).

6. Therefore, in the given factual matrix appeal was filed within the period of limitation i.e. on 01.06.2024.

The High Court ordered (Laxmi Metal and Machines Vs Union Of India - P&H High Court In CWP-24192-2025) - 2025-TIOL-1920-HC-P&H-GST

impugned order in appeal dated 19.06.2025 is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

This is not a rare happening.

In 2024, there was a case of Pramod Kumar Tomar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST decided by the Delhi High Court in - 2024-TIOL-749-HC-DEL-GST. The Punjab and Haryana High Court agreed with the Delhi High Court.

This is what happened in Delhi.

The Appellate Authority held that there was a delay in filing the appeal for the reason that the Order-in-Original was not uploaded with the appeal at the time of online filing and a copy was physically filed after a gap of nearly ten months and as such the appeal was barred by time.

The taxpayer impugned the Order-in-Original dated 12.08.2022 by filing the appeal online on 12.11.2022. At the time of physical hearing of the appeal on 29.08.2023, the taxpayer was asked to file a physical copy of the Order-in-Original which was filed. Since the physical copy was filed on 29.08.2023, the Appellate Authority held that the appeal was barred by time.

The Order-in-Appeal records that in terms of Rule 108 (3) of the Central Goods and Service Tax Rules, 2017, the date of issuance of provisional acknowledgement is to be considered as the date of filing of the appeal, if the decision or order appealed is uploaded on the common portal.

Appellate Authority held that Appellant had not uploaded the order appealed against at the time of online filing and as such the date when the same was physically filed on 29.08.2023 would be deemed to be the date of filing of the appeal. Thus, he held that the appeal is barred by time.

And so, our taxpayer approached the Delhi High Court in writ petition.

The counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Order-in-Original was uploaded on the common portal along with the appeal on 12.11.2022 and as such, the date of filing of the appeal shall be deemed to be 12.11.2022 and not 29.08.2023 as held by the Appellate Authority.

Initially, this submission was disputed by the counsel for the respondents (Government) but the counsel for the petitioner on 24.04.2024 demonstrated before the Court by accessing the online portal and showed that the Order-in-Original had been uploaded along with the appeal.

The counsel for Revenue later submitted that the stand that the Order-in-Original was not uploaded along with the appeal was taken because of a technical glitch. He submits that the online portal accessible to the department did not reflect the Order-in-Original as part of the appeal.

So, what you see in the portal is not what the Department sees! A taxpayer's upload becomes a mirage - visible on the portal, invisible to the department. What the taxpayer sees online, the department swears is missing.

This is like Schrödinger's cat in quantum theory - the cat in the box is both alive and dead until someone opens it. Likewise, the Order-in-Original was both uploaded and not uploaded - alive on the taxpayer's portal, dead on the department's screen - until the High Court looked inside.

He submitted that same has been re-verified and it has been confirmed that Order-in-Original had been uploaded along with the appeal.

But he was not ready to concede that the appeal was filed in time. He submitted that the appeal having been filed on 12.11.2022 is delayed by one day.

The High Court observed:

1. Subject Order-in-Original was signed on 12.08.2022 by the Adjudicating Authority. The counsel for petitioner is unable to confirm as to the date when the order was uploaded/communicated. Even if it is assumed that the order was communicated/uploaded on 12.08.2022 the date on which it is signed, the appeal was to be filed within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

2. In the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has held that the appeal was liable to be filed before 11.11.2022. Said finding is erroneous as the Appellate Authority has not noticed the provisions of Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. In terms of Section 12 (1) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation for an appeal, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, is to be excluded.

4. Further, in terms of Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, in computing the period of limitation, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced, is also to be excluded.

5. Accordingly, even if it is assumed that the order was uploaded/communicated on the day it was signed i.e. 12.08.2022, said date of 12.08.2022 is to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. Accordingly, the period of three months is to commence from 13.08.2022.

6. Thus, petitioner was liable to file the appeal by 12.11.2022. It is an admitted position that the appeal was filed along with a copy of the order, through the on-line mode on 12.11.2022, i.e. within the period of three months.

Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as: -

12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. -

(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded.

(2) In computing the period of limitation for an appeal or an application for leave to appeal or for revision or for review of a judgment, the day on which the judgment complained of was pronounced and the time requisite for obtaining a copy of the decree, sentence or order appealed from or sought to be revised or reviewed shall be excluded.

Consequently, the High Court held that the appeal was within time, and the impugned order erroneously rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. Consequently, the order dated 18.10.2023 was set aside. The appeal is restored on the records of the Appellate Authority.

So here we are: highly qualified officers, armed with statutory powers, undone by calendars and computers - two inventions older than GST itself. The High Court had to remind them of basics - Day Zero exists.

Maybe the next module in the tax academy should be titled:

How to Count Days Without Losing Face - or at least without losing cases.

As the Supreme Court once observed (2010-TIOL-46-SC-LMT) :-

After all, justice can be done only when the matter is fought on merits and in accordance with law rather than to dispose it of on such technicalities and that too at the threshold.