Summary: In Mani Prakash (M/s. Star Catering) v. The Additional Commissioner & Anr. (04.08.2026), the Madras High Court considered GST appeals arising from a common Section 74 adjudication order dated 07.11.2025 covering multiple financial years, followed by separate Form GST DRC-07s dated 17.11.2025 for each year. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeals on 21.04.2026 by computing limitation from the common order. The High Court held that where separate DRC-07s are issued for different assessment periods, limitation under Section 107 runs from the date of the respective DRC-07, as the demands were separately communicated through those notices. It held that computing limitation from the common order would be legally untenable and contrary to principles of natural justice. The Court also found sufficient cause for the approximately 28-day delay, noting that the petitioner became aware of the demand during recovery proceedings. It condoned the delay, set aside the appellate rejection orders and remanded the matters to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits. No order as to costs was made.
A. Brief Facts
The petitioner, a registered person under GST, was issued a common detailed adjudication order dated 07.11.2025 under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 covering multiple financial years from FY 2018-19 to FY 2024-25.
Subsequent to the said common order, the department issued separate Form GST DRC-07 dated 17.11.2025 for each financial year, quantifying the demand, interest and penalty.
Aggrieved by the demands, the petitioner preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority under Section 107. The Appellate Authority vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 38-44/2026 dated 21.04.2026 dismissed all the appeals solely on the ground of bar of limitation, computing limitation from the date of the common order dated 07.11.2025.
The petitioner contended that there was a delay of approximately 28 days and that the delay was attributable to non-communication by the erstwhile consultant. The petitioner became aware of the demand only upon initiation of recovery proceedings on 19.02.2026, whereafter the present appeals were filed through new counsel.
Challenging the appellate rejection orders, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the Section 74 order, the respective DRC-07s and the appellate rejection orders.
B. Issues Framed
- Whether the period of limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act is to be computed from the date of the common adjudication order or from the date of individual DRC-07 issued for each assessment period?
- Whether the delay in filing the appeals, if any, can be condoned under the writ jurisdiction on the ground of “sufficient cause”?
C. Submissions & Observations of the Hon’ble Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the department itself had issued separate DRC-07s for each assessment period on 17.11.2025. Therefore, the cause of action for the purpose of filing an appeal accrued separately for each period on the date of service of the respective DRC-07.
The Court held that to compute limitation from the date of the common order dated 07.11.2025, when separate demands were communicated later vide DRC-07 dated 17.11.2025, would be legally untenable and contrary to the principles of natural justice.
On the aspect of delay, the Court noted that the delay was approximately 28 days and was satisfactorily explained. The petitioner demonstrated “sufficient cause” as the knowledge of the impugned order came to him only upon coercive recovery action. In such circumstances, the Court was satisfied that the technicality of limitation ought not to defeat substantive justice.
D. Ratio Decidendi & Holding
The Hon’ble High Court was pleased to hold as under:
- Computation of Limitation: Where a common order under Section 74 is followed by separate DRC-07s for different assessment periods, the limitation for filing appeal shall run from the date of each respective DRC-07 and not from the date of the common order. If computed from DRC-07 dated 17.11.2025, the appeals were within the condonable period.
- Condonation of Delay: Being satisfied that sufficient cause was shown, the delay of 28 days was condoned in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
- Consequence: The impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.04.2026 was set aside. The matters were remanded to the Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication on merits. No order as to costs.
E. Significance for Practitioners
This judgment lays down a crucial proposition for GST litigation:
- Precedent Value: It provides clarity that DRC-07 is the operative document for the purpose of limitation under Section 107. Department cannot take advantage of its own practice of issuing a common order followed by staggered DRC-07s to defeat the right of appeal.
- Writ Jurisdiction for Condonation: The Court has reiterated that where the delay is minimal and explained by sufficient cause, the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to condone delay and direct the appellate authority to decide on merits, thereby preventing miscarriage of justice.
- Practical Impact: This ruling will provide relief to numerous assessees who have faced similar rejection of appeals on technical grounds of limitation.
F. Conclusion
The judgment in Star Catering is a welcome step towards ensuring that substantive rights of appeal under the GST law are not defeated by procedural technicalities. It reinforces that the date of communication of demand in Form DRC-07 is the relevant date for computing limitation and that courts will lean in favour of condonation where genuine hardship is demonstrated.
******
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Stakeholders should refer to the official GSTN Advisory and consult their tax advisor for specific situations.
