Case Law Details
Sri Balaji Metallics Private Limited Vs Commissioner of CT & GST & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court Issues Notice Against Orissa HC Ruling Upholding Section 107(4) GST Appeal Limitation Cap
The Supreme Court issued notice in a petition filed by Sri Balaji Metallics Private Limited against the Commissioner of CT & GST and others, arising from the Orissa High Court’s dismissal of a writ petition concerning limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Supreme Court granted liberty to serve the Standing Counsel for the respondents and directed that a copy of the petition additionally be furnished to the learned Additional Solicitor General. The matter was directed to be listed for consideration on 27.07.2026.
Read HC Judgment in this case: Section GST 107 Appeal Dismissal Upheld as Filed Beyond Statutory Outer Limit: Orissa HC
The dispute before the Orissa High Court arose from an order of the Additional Commissioner of CT and GST (Appeal), Rourkela, rejecting the petitioner’s application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissing the appeal. The appellate authority held that the delay exceeded the maximum outer limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act and that it lacked power to condone delay beyond the statutorily permitted period.
The petitioner contended that the order passed under Section 73 of the GST law through Form GST DRC-07 had not been communicated before 14.06.2024. According to the petitioner, it came to know of the order only when its bank account was attached pursuant to action taken by the proper officer. It was therefore argued that the limitation period under Section 107(1) should run from the date on which the order was actually communicated or made known to the aggrieved person, rather than merely from the date on which the order was passed.
The Orissa High Court accepted the general legal proposition that communication of the order is essential for computing limitation under Section 107(1). It observed that the statutory provision expressly provides that the prescribed period of three months begins from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to the aggrieved person. Thus, according to the High Court, communication of the order is a sine qua non for determining the limitation period. If an appeal is filed within the prescribed period calculated from the date of communication, it would be maintainable and liable to be entertained by the appellate authority.
Section 107 of the CGST Act provides the statutory appellate mechanism against decisions or orders passed by an adjudicating authority. Under Section 107(1), any person aggrieved by such decision or order may appeal to the prescribed appellate authority within three months from the date on which the decision or order is communicated to that person. Section 107(4) further provides a limited power of condonation: where the appellate authority is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the initial three-month period, it may allow the appeal to be presented within a further period of one month. Thus, on the statutory scheme considered by the High Court, the normal limitation period is three months from communication of the order, with a further condonable period of one month upon sufficient cause being shown. The controversy in the present case centred both on the date of communication and on whether the appellate authority could entertain an appeal after expiry of this outer period.
On the facts, however, the High Court examined Form GST APL-01 filed by the petitioner while challenging the Order-in-Original. The Court noted that the order had been passed on 21.11.2023 and that the appeal form itself indicated that the order had been duly communicated to the petitioner on the same date. The High Court held that once the appellant admitted in the statutory appeal form that the order had been communicated in accordance with the applicable provisions, it would be deemed to have been communicated accordingly and limitation would begin from that date.
The appellate authority had rejected the petitioner’s contention that the order became known only on 14.06.2024 when the bank account was attached. It found that the appeal had been filed beyond the statutory outer limit. The High Court agreed with this approach and observed that Section 107(4) permits the appellate authority to condone delay only for a further period of one month beyond the normal limitation period prescribed under Section 107(1), provided sufficient cause is established.
The High Court held that where the statutory power to condone delay is expressly abridged or restricted by an outer cap, the appellate authority cannot exercise such power beyond the prescribed limit. It noted that the appellate authority had categorically found the appeal to have been filed beyond the outer period contemplated under Section 107(4). Consequently, the power to condone a longer delay stood excluded by the statutory framework.
The petitioner’s plea that it had been prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within time was also rejected. The High Court held that such a contention could not overcome the express outer limit contained in the statutory provision. Finding no infirmity or illegality in the appellate authority’s decision, the Orissa High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The matter has now reached the Supreme Court. At this stage, the Supreme Court has not recorded any final determination on the interpretation of Section 107(1), the statutory condonation limit under Section 107(4), or the factual controversy regarding communication of the GST order. The Court has issued notice to the respondents, permitted service on their Standing Counsel, directed that a copy of the petition be supplied to the Additional Solicitor General, and listed the matter for further consideration on 27.07.2026.
Petitioner(s) Represented by Mr. Kartik Kurmy, Adv., Mr. Ashok Anand, AOR and Mr. Ajay G
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Issue notice to the respondents.
2. Liberty is granted to serve the Standing Counsel for the respondent(s).
3. Let a copy of this Petition additionally be given to Mr. Raghavendra P. Shankar, learned Additional Solicitor General.
4. List the matter for consideration on 27th July, 2026.
Author Bio
