The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a GST assessee, refusing to condone even a six-day delay in filing a statutory appeal. The court made it clear that once the limitation period prescribed under the GST law expires, neither the appellate authority nor the High Court can extend it through writ jurisdiction.
The ruling came from a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi while hearing a petition filed by Harsh Deepk Shah against the Union of India and tax authorities.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an Order-in-Original dated April 24, 2024, passed under the Goods and Services Tax regime. Aggrieved by the demand, the petitioner sought to challenge the order by filing a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the GST Act, 2017.
However, the appeal was filed on October 5, 2024, which was six days beyond the maximum permissible period of 120 days. As a result, the appellate authority rejected the appeal as time-barred. A subsequent Order-in-Appeal dated May 30, 2025 upheld that rejection, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the petitioner argued that the delay was minor and deserved to be condoned. He submitted that the appeal had been uploaded online and that the petitioner had already paid a substantial part of the GST demand.
It was further argued that the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, had the power to condone the delay, relying on earlier High Court rulings. The petitioner also pointed out that additional payments were made during the appeal process and undertook to clear the remaining liability.
On the other hand, the tax department opposed the plea, stressing that Section 107 of the GST Act clearly caps the condonable delay and that courts cannot override legislative intent.
Court’s Observations
The bench carefully examined the statutory scheme and precedent. Referring to Section 107, the court noted that an appeal must be filed within three months, with a maximum extension of only one additional month if sufficient cause is shown.
“The statute draws a clear line,” the bench observed, explaining that once the outer limit of 120 days is crossed, the appellate authority becomes powerless to entertain the appeal.
The court also relied heavily on judgments of the Supreme Court of India, including Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, which held that even constitutional courts must respect statutory time limits.
Quoting the Supreme Court, the bench noted that while High Courts have wide powers under Article 226, “those powers cannot be exercised in a manner that makes statutory limitation provisions meaningless.”
No Scope for Writ Relief
The judges rejected the petitioner’s plea that the High Court could step in to condone the delay. They pointed out that once an assessee chooses the statutory appellate route and misses the limitation period, the High Court cannot revive that remedy through writ jurisdiction.
The reasons cited for the delay illness of an accountant and closure of business were also found unconvincing. The bench remarked that such explanations had been rejected by higher courts in earlier cases.
Final Decision
Concluding that the law left no room for discretion, the Gujarat High Court refused to interfere with the appellate authority’s order.
“The writ petition fails and is dismissed,” the bench held, discharging the rule and declining to pass any order on costs.
Case Title:- Harsh Deepk Shah vs Union of India & Others
Case Number:- Special Civil Application No. 17382 of 2025
