the essay of 10 December 2025 · the untouched capture
Rendered as it looked. Links and images are disabled in this view; the file itself is untouched.
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"> <html> <head> <title>Untitled Document</title> <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> <p><strong><font color="#663399" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">DECEMBER 10, 2025 </font></strong></p> <p align="center"><font color="#FF6633" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong> GST Appeals - High Court Resets Time </strong></font></p> <p align="center"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong><u>By Vijay Kumar </u></strong></font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><strong>IS</strong> calculation of time (for anything official) taught in our tax academy? At least one Appellate Authority had to be schooled by a High Court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 19.06.2025, citing a <em>"delay of </em></font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="background-color:#ffff00"><em>one day</em></font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><em>."</em></font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Yes, </font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="background-color:#ffff00">one day</font><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">! And yes, without correctly computing, and without granting a personal hearing. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">So, what does a taxpayer do? You guessed it - march to the High Court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The Petitioner/taxpayer submitted in the High Court: </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">1. The Appellate Authority has grossly erred while calculating the period of limitation. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">2. Order-in-Original passed on 24.01.2024 was communicated on 01.02.2024. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">3. The period of 3 months would thus expire on 01.05.2024. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">6. Last date for filing of appeal was 01.06.2024 and the same was filed on that date. </font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The Appellate Authority in his Order had stated: </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="background-color:#d1d1e7"><em>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. </em></font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The High Court noted: </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">1. It is apparent that First Appellate Authority has erred in holding that appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">2. Order-in-original is dated 24.01.2024 and admittedly communicated on 01.02.2024. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">3. The appeal was filed on 01.06.2024. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">5. It is pertinent to note that the day on which the order is passed/communicated has to be treated as Day Zero (0). </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">6. Therefore, in the given factual matrix appeal was filed within the period of limitation i.e. on 01.06.2024. </font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The High Court ordered (<font color="#663399">Laxmi Metal and Machines Vs Union Of India - P&H High Court In CWP-24192-2025</font>) - <strong><a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/caselaw/details?id=190553&type=caselaw">2025-TIOL-1920-HC-P&H-GST </a></strong></font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="background-color:#c1dfe8">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. </font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">This is not a rare happening. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">In 2024, there was a case of <em>Pramod Kumar Tomar Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Central GST </em> decided by the Delhi High Court in - <a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/searchcaselaw/details?id=181356&type=caselaw&keyword=null" target="_blank"><strong>2024-TIOL-749-HC-DEL-GST</strong></a>. The Punjab and Haryana High Court agreed with the Delhi High Court. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">This is what happened in Delhi. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">And so, our taxpayer approached the Delhi High Court in writ petition. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">He submitted that same has been re-verified and it has been confirmed that Order-in-Original had been uploaded along with the appeal. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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 <strong><font color="#ff0000">one day</font></strong>.</font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">The High Court observed: </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Section 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as: - </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><em>12. Exclusion of time in legal proceedings. - </em></font></p><blockquote><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><em>(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. </em></font></p><p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2"><em>(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. </em></font></p></blockquote></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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.</font></p> <p align="justify"><img src="https://admin.taxindiaonline.com/UploadedFiles/Customs/CaseLaws/2025/Capture.JPG" style="height:371px; width:575px"/></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Maybe the next module in the tax academy should be titled: </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2" style="background-color:#f3dbcf">How to Count Days Without Losing Face - or at least without losing cases. </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">As the Supreme Court once observed (<a href="https://taxindiaonline.com/searchcaselaw/details?id=75464&type=caselaw&keyword=null" target="_blank"><strong>2010-TIOL-46-SC-LMT</strong></a>) :- </font></p> <blockquote><p align="justify"><em><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">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.</font></em></p></blockquote> <p align="justify"><font color="#ff0000" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Until next week </font></p> <p align="justify"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Comments/feedback welcome at <a href="mailto:vijaywrite@tiol.in"><strong>vijaywrite@tiol.in</strong> </a> or 9848111243 (WhatsApp) </font></p> </body> </html>