Case Law Details
One E Store Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Taxes) (Telangana High Court)
Limitation Period For Filing The Appeal Against Order In Original After Rejection of The Rectification Application
The question of the Tax Payer is about to know the limitation period to file the appeal against the order in original after rejection of rectification application filed against the order in original.
Section 161 of the CGST Act – The person may file the rectification application within three months from the date of order.
Section 107(1) of the CGST Act – Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
There are two options before the Tax Payer either file the rectification application under section 161 CGST Act or file the appeal under section 107 CGST Act if the Tax Payer is not satisfied with order passed.
The rectification application is filed if there is a case of error which is apparent on the face of record in the order.
The Tax Payer filed the rectification application on 22.11.2024 against the order pertaining to the F.Y. 2019-20 passed on 29.08.2024. The rectification application was filed within stipulated period i.e. three months.
The rectification application was finally rejected on vide order dated 24.11.2025 i.e. after one year.
The Tax Payer preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority by filing the appeal on 19.02.2026 against order in original passed on 29.08.2024.
The Tax Payer filed the appeal within three months within date of order rejecting the rectification application.
The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on limitation ground i.e. appeal was furnished beyond the limitation period while considering the date of order i.e. 29.08.2024.
The Tax Payer challenged the matter before the Telangana High Court. The Hon’ble Telangana High Court held on 10.06.2026 in the matter of M/s ONE E STORE PRIVATE LIMITED (WRIT PETITION Nos.17308 of 2026) as under:
Para 7 – In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have rejected the appeal on this hyper technical aspect of appeal being filed after about more than one and half years from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024. At best, if at all, the Appellate Joint Commissioner was of the view that there was no challenge to the rejection order of the rectification application dated 24.11.2025, the petitioner would have been advised to amend the memo of appeal suitably, so as to make good the technicalities, so far as the limitation is concerned and also so far as challenge to the original order dated 29.08.2024 is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the Appellate Joint Commissioner ought not to have taken more pragmatic approach in deciding the appeal, particularly, in the aforesaid given factual matrix.
Conclusion
If the Tax Payer has honestly filed the rectification application and appeal after rejection of the rectification application within stipulated/statutory period then the appeal should be accepted even if the appeal is filed against the order in original.
*******
(PARVEEN KUMAR MAHAJAN)
Advocate
Please find the article to be published in your august site. The article is clarifying about limitation period for filing the appeal against the order in original after rejecting the application filed for rectification the order in original. The article is clarifying on the basis of judgement given by the Hon’ble Telangana High Court.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Heard Mr.K.P.Amarnath Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned Government Pleader for State Tax appearing for the respondents.
2. The instant is the writ petition which has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Joint Commissioner of State Tax, dated 20.04.2026, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner filed under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short “the Act”) was rejected on the ground of being barred by limitation. The original order of assessment has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 29.08.2024 for the financial year 2019-2020.
Against the said order, the petitioner had preferred an application for rectification on 22.11.2024 i.e. within the time limit prescribed under the Act and also within the period of limitation prescribed for filing of application. The rectification application finally stood rejected vide the order dated 24.11.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner is stated to have immediately preferred an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner on 19.02.2026 that again is within the period of three months from 24.11.2025. In the appeal, the petitioner had challenged the original order dated 29.08.2024 and not rectification order dated 24.11.2025. On account of which, the Appellate authority had rejected the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation counting the limitation from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been pursuing the remedy under the statute available seeking for rectification of the original order dated 29.08.2024 and the said application was decided by the authority only after period about one year on 24.11.2025 and thereafter, the appeal before the Appellate Commissioner was filed within three months period prescribed for preferring the appeal. According to the petitioner, he has given a satisfactory and plausible explanation for non-filing of the appeal within three months period from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024 and it was also contended that it is not the case that the petitioner was sitting idle of not having preferred any other statutory remedy available to him and abruptly filed the appeal without explanation on 19.02.2026.
4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, opposing the petition submits that the petitioner since has preferred an appeal after rejection of the rectification application. For all practical purposes, the petitioner ought to have challenged the rectification order itself in the appeal, which is otherwise permissible under the statute and therefore, the order cannot be found fault with.
5. Having heard the contentions put forth by either side and on perusal of the records, admittedly, the original order was passed on 29.08.2024 by the Assistant Commissioner. There is also no dispute to the extent of rectification application having been filed on 22.11.2024, which again is within three months from the date of original order was passed and admittedly, the rectification application was decided vide order dated 24.11.2025 and it is only thereafter within a period of three months from 24.11.2025, the appeal was filed before Appellate Commissioner on 19.02.2026.
6. With the aforesaid admitted factual matrix and the dates available, we have no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the petitioner has been genuinely pursuing her remedies available under the statute against the original order dated 29.08.2024 and only after her rectification application stood rejected, she has again timely filed the appeal within the period of three months from the date when the rectification application stood rejected.
7. In view of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellate Commissioner ought not to have rejected the appeal on this hyper technical aspect of appeal being filed after about more than one and half years from the date original order was passed on 29.08.2024. At best, if at all, the Appellate Joint Commissioner was of the view that there was no challenge to the rejection order of the rectification application dated 24.11.2025, the petitioner would have been advised to amend the memo of appeal suitably, so as to make good the technicalities, so far as the limitation is concerned and also so far as challenge to the original order dated 29.08.2024 is concerned. Thus, we are of the view that the Appellate Joint Commissioner ought not to have taken more pragmatic approach in deciding the appeal, particularly, in the aforesaid given factual matrix.
8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow the writ petition by setting aside the order dated 20.04.2026 (Annexure P.10) insofar as the appeal being dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation. The matter stands remitted back to the Appellate Joint Commissioner to decide the appeal purely on its merits in accordance with law. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on merits.
9. The instant Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Author Bio
