Debabrata Bhowmick Vs Union of India (Gauhati High Court)
The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Appeal dated 19.02.2026 by which the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act as time-barred, holding that it had been filed beyond the normal limitation period of three months and the additional one-month condonable period.
The dispute arose from proceedings alleging excess availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC) for FY 2020-21. After notices under Section 73 and a Show Cause Notice, the Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in-Original on 03.01.2025 confirming recovery of excess ITC of ₹90,948, imposing a penalty of ₹20,000, and confirming interest. The petitioner filed a rectification application under Section 161 of the CGST Act on 08.03.2025, which was rejected on 24.04.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 107 on 23.05.2025, which was rejected as barred by limitation.
The petitioner contended that the time spent in pursuing the rectification proceedings should be excluded while computing limitation and that the Appellate Authority ought to have afforded an opportunity to explain the delay. The respondents argued that Section 107 prescribes a strict limitation period under the CGST Act and that delay beyond the prescribed period cannot be condoned.
The High Court held that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals under Sections 107 and 112 of the CGST Act, the principles underlying Section 14 of the Limitation Act can apply where the statutory conditions are satisfied. The Court found that the rectification application under Section 161 had been filed within the prescribed time, was pursued with due diligence and in good faith, and that the period from 08.03.2025 to 24.04.2025 was liable to be excluded while computing limitation. On that basis, the appeal filed on 23.05.2025 fell within the extended one-month period available under Section 107(4).
