New Kabady Shop Vs State Texes Department (Jammu And Kashmir And Ladakh High Court)
The Jammu & Kashmir High Court considered a petition challenging the order dated 24 June 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sales Tax Department, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, which had rejected the petitioner’s appeal under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act on the ground of limitation. The appeal had been filed online on 6 June 2025 against Demand Order No. ZD010225002391A dated 5 February 2025 issued by the Assessing Authority, Circle, Budgam, Kashmir.
The Court noted that Section 107(1) of the GST Act permits an appeal against an order passed by an adjudicating authority to be filed before the Appellate Authority within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Under Section 107(4), the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to condone delay for a further period of one month. Beyond that additional one-month period, the Appellate Authority does not have jurisdiction to condone the delay.
In the present case, the petitioner filed the appeal after expiry of the prescribed three-month period together with the further one-month period capable of being condoned by the Appellate Authority. The Court recorded that the delay beyond the extendable period was only one day.
The High Court considered whether it could grant relief despite the statutory limitation under Section 107(4). It relied upon its earlier judgment in M/s Multi Trading Agencies, Drangbal Vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, bearing WP(C) No. 1898 of 2024, decided on 17 October 2024. In that case, the Court had held that the prohibition under Section 107(4) against condoning delay beyond one month could not prevent Constitutional Courts from exercising their extraordinary jurisdiction to render substantial justice. The Court had also observed that although the statutory prohibition was a strong consideration, it did not bar the High Court from condoning delay where application of the delay-bar would result in gross injustice.
The Court also noted that a similar view had been taken in M/s Parshotam Electronics vs. State Taxes Officer, Circle-Q, Jammu, bearing WP(C) No. 2909/2024, decided on 29 September 2025.
Turning to the petitioner’s circumstances, the High Court noted that the petitioner had stated before the Appellate Authority that his sister had passed away and, as a result, he could not file the appeal within the prescribed limitation period. Considering this assertion together with the fact that the delay beyond the prescribed extendable period was only one day, the Court was of the opinion that refusing to hear the appeal on merits would operate harshly against the petitioner.
The High Court therefore held that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to present his case before the Appellate Authority in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. The impugned order of the Appellate Authority was set aside, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision on merits in accordance with law. The petition was disposed of along with the connected CM.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Parshotam Electronics vs. State Taxes Officer, Circle-Q, Jammu (Jammu & Kashmir High Court), WP(C) No. 2909/2024
- M/s Multi Trading Agencies, Drangbal Vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors (Jammu & Kashmir High Court), WP(C) No. 1898 of 2024
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has challenged Order dated 24th of June, 2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, Sales Tax Department, Kashmir Division, Srinagar, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax, Act through online mode on 6th of June, 2025 against Demand Order No. ZD010225002391A passed by the Assessing Authority, Circle, Budgam, Kashmir, on 5th of February, 2025, came to be rejected on the ground that the same had not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation under the GST Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
3. It is not in dispute that the appeal against Order dated 5th of February, 2025 passed by the Assessing Authority was filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority on 6th of June, 2025. As per the provisions contained in Section 107 (1) of the GST Act, an appeal against an order passed under the said Act by the adjudicating Authority can be made before the Appellate Authority within a period of three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Sub-section (4) of Section 107 of the Act, however, vests jurisdiction with the Appellate Authority to condone the delay in presenting the appeal to the extent of a further period of one month, meaning thereby, that beyond the said period of one month, the Appellate Authority does not have the jurisdiction to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
4. In the present case, the petitioner has filed the appeal after the expiry of the prescribed period of three months plus the further period of one month which is eligible to be condoned by the Appellate Authority. In fact, there was delay of only one day in filing the appeal in the present case. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether, in such circumstances, this Court can come to the rescue of the petitioner.
5. In the above context, reliance is being placed upon the judgment delivered by this Court in case titled “M/s Multi Trading Agencies, Drangbal Vs. UT of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors” bearing WP(C) No. 1898 of 2024 decided on 17th of October, 2024, wherein it has been held that the prohibition contained in Section 107(4) of the Act of 2017 to condone the delay beyond one month cannot come in the way of the Constitutional Courtsin exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction to render substantial justice. The Court further observed that while the statutory prohibition is a strong consideration to be kept in mind, yet it does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court to condone the delay if it is of the opinion that application of the delay barring statute would result in gross injustice.
6. A similar view has been taken by this Court in case titled “M/s Parshotam Electronics vs. State Taxes Officer, Circle-Q, Jammu”, bearing WP(C) No. 2909/2024, decided on 29th of September, 2025.
7. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as already stated hereinbefore, there was only one day’s delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed extendable period of limitation. In the application made by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, it has been pleaded that the sister of the petitioner had passed away, as a result whereof he could not file the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner coupled with the fact that there was a delay of only one day in filing the appeal, this Court is of the opinion that in case appeal of the petitioner is not heard on merits, it would work harshly against him. The petitioner needs to be given a chance to present his case before the Appellate Authority in order to meet the ends of justice.
9. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority is set aside and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and decision on merits in accordance with law.
10. Disposed of along with connected CM.
