Mohd Alam vs. The Assistant Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Mohd. Alam, filed a writ petition challenging an order-in-original dated 14.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, which raised a demand of ₹ 64,816.00 for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. This order was based on a show cause notice dated 22.02.2023. The petitioner had also filed an appeal against the order-in-original before the Joint Commissioner, Appeal (G.S.T.), State Tax, Haldwani. However, this appeal was dismissed by an order dated 12.05.2026 on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 12.12.2025, nearly two years after the order-in-original was passed, and was approximately 01 year and 08 months beyond the prescribed time limit.

Held

The High Court held that the order of the Appellate Authority dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by limitation was not illegal. The Court noted that the statutory period for filing an appeal is three months, with a possible extension of one month for sufficient reasons. The petitioner filed their appeal on 12.12.2025, almost two years after the order-in-original dated 14.12.2023, making it approximately 01 year and 08 months beyond the permissible time. The Court found no illegality in the Appellate Authority's decision to dismiss the appeal on this ground. Consequently, as the statutory remedy of appeal was lost due to inordinate delay and laches, the High Court declined to examine the validity of the order-in-original itself, stating that doing so would grant an undue advantage to a litigant who had slept on their rights. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of limitation, under Section 107 of the CGST Act, is legally sustainable? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner implicitly argues that the dismissal of their appeal on limitation grounds was incorrect, as they are seeking relief from the High Court. However, no specific arguments were recorded in the judgment regarding the petitioner's contention on the limitation period or any reasons for the delay. Revenue's Argument: The Revenue contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner was significantly beyond the prescribed limitation period. The judgment notes that the statutory limitation for filing an appeal is three months, extendable by a further period of one month for sufficient reasons. The Revenue's stance, as reflected in the Appellate Authority's order, is that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay, rendering it liable for dismissal.