Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017, governs the filing of appeals against orders passed by adjudicating authorities. Section 107(1) grants an aggrieved person “Three months” from the date of communication of the order to file an appeal, while Section 107(4) allows the Appellate Authority to condone a delay of “one month” if sufficient cause is shown. A practical problem has surfaced due to conflicting interpretations of these time limits.
First Appellate Authorities in several states are rejecting appeals, asserting that they were not filed within 90 days (under Section 107(1)) or within the condonable period of 30 days (under Section 107(4)). The Revenue interprets “three months” as 90 days and “one month” as 30 days, totaling a rigid 120-day limit. This stance, however, is being contested as inconsistent with the law and judicial rulings. Let’s dissect the provisions and clarify the correct position with examples.
The terms “three months” and “one month” are pivotal. The Revenue’s approach of fixing “three months” at 90 days and “one month” at 30 days assumes a uniform month length. However, the CGST Act does not define “month,” so we turn to Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which applies to all Central Acts unless overridden.
The General Clauses Act, 1897, is a law that provides general definitions for words and phrases used in various Indian laws. Section 3(35) specifically defines “month” that means a month reckoned according to the British calendar, which is the Gregorian calendar.
This definition is important because it clarifies how “month” should be interpreted when used in various Indian laws and regulations, particularly when calculating time periods or deadlines. The term “British calendar” is used in the definition, but it essentially refers to the Gregorian calendar, which is the calendar used worldwide for civil purposes.
Example: If a law states that a period is “three months” from a certain date, then according to section 3(35), the period will end on the corresponding date three months later, irrespective of the number of days in the intervening months
Thus it is clarifies that “month” as “a month reckoned according to the British calendar,” meaning it varies—31 days for January, 28 or 29 for February, 30 for April, etc. Thus, “three months” and “one month” must follow this calendar reckoning, not a flat 90+30-day count.
Revenue’s Interpretation vs Legal Position:
The Revenue’s 90+30-day formula overlooks the calendar month definition. This leads to erroneous rejections of appeals, especially when months have 31 days. Moreover, dismissing appeals summarily without notice or hearing violates natural justice. The correct approach, as upheld by courts, is to compute the period as calendar months, not fixed days.
Judicial Pronouncements Clarify the Position:
The courts have consistently ruled that “month” means a calendar month under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Key judgments include:
1. Patna High Court– Brand Protection Services Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Bihar [C.W.P. No. 14957 of 2024, dated 04.02.2025]
Held that “three months” follows the British calendar, not 90 days.
2. Kerala High Court – N.N. Steel Trading Co. vs The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) [W.P.(C) No. 35471 of 2024, dated 22.10.2024]
Affirmed the calendar month reckoning for appeal periods.
3. Madras High Court – Tvl. S.V. Technick vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)(GST) Appeals – II [W.P. No. 38768 of 2024, dated 03.01.2025] Confirmed “one month” as a calendar month.
4. Supreme Court – State of Himachal Pradesh vs M/s Himachal Engineers & Anr. [C.A. No. 5998 of 2010, dated 26.07.2010]
Upheld the General Clauses Act definition.
5. Supreme Court – Bibi Salma Khatoon vs State of Bihar & Ors [C.A. No. 5645 of 2001, dated 21.08.2001] Clarified that a month is not a fixed 30-day period.
These rulings establish that the time limit is “three months” plus “one month,” both as calendar months, not 90+30 days.
How to Calculate Due Date of filing of appeal as per the General Clauses Act, 1897 ?
Section 9: Computation of Time states:
When an Act, order, or notification specifies a time period from a particular date or event, the first day is excluded from the calculation.
If the time period is prescribed in months or years, the computation follows calendar months or years, ending on the corresponding date in the last month/year.
Example: If a compliance requirement is to be fulfilled within 3 months from 30th Nov, the due date is calculated as follows:
Step 1: Exclude 30th Nov
Step 2: Start counting from 1st December
Step 3: Add 3 full calendar months → The due date falls on 28/29 February
Note: If the due date is 28/29 February that has only 28 or 29 days, the last date of February will be considered.
Due Date for Filing Appeals with Delay Condonation
When an appeal is allowed to be filed within 3 months, with an additional 1-month condonation:
The normal due date is calculated as per Section 9.
The extended due date is calculated by adding 1 more month.
Example: If an order is communicated on 30th November and the appeal period is 3 months:
Normal due date = 28th/29th February.
With delay condonation = 31st March.
Conclusion:
The time limit under Sections 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, is three months (calendar months) from the order’s communication, extendable by one month (calendar month) with sufficient cause. The Revenue’s 90+30-day interpretation lacks legal backing and is overruled by judicial precedents. Taxpayers should compute deadlines using the British calendar and cite these rulings if challenged, while authorities must ensure procedural fairness and compliance with the law. First Appellate Authorities must follow this legal position. When an appeal seems delayed beyond three months, they should issue a notice, seek the appellant’s explanation, and decide condonation on merits. Rejecting appeals ex-parte based on a 90-day miscalculation is unsustainable and invites litigation before High Courts
*****
Author can be reached at mr.himanshu@icai.org
Author Bio
