Sundaram Alloys Limted Vs Additional Commissioner of Central Tax (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Ferro Alloys and registered under GST, accumulated Input Tax Credit (ITC) on account of exports and sought refund under Section 54 of the CGST Act, 2017 read with Rule 89 of the CGST Rules, 2017 for the period from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The refund claim was rejected by the second respondent on 11.08.2023. The petitioner filed a statutory appeal with a delay of 39 days, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 26.06.2024, leading to the present writ petition.
The petitioner submitted that the delay occurred because its authorised person was suffering from serious ill health, supported by a medical certificate. It contended that the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider this explanation and that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory right. The petitioner also pointed out that appeals relating to refund claims for April 2021–March 2022 and April 2022–March 2023 had subsequently been allowed by the Appellate Authority through separate orders dated 29.12.2025. Reliance was placed on Shaik Abdul Azeez v. State of Andhra Pradesh.
The respondents contended that the Appellate Authority had no discretion to condone delay beyond the period prescribed under the statute and that the petitioner had a further remedy before the Tribunal under Section 112(1) of the CGST Act.
