Satish Kumar Mishra vs. Commissionerof CGST

Held

The Court held that the appellate authority committed an error by dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without providing the petitioner with a proper opportunity to explain the alleged delay. The Court reasoned that the appellate authority is first required to decide whether there is a delay in filing an appeal. If the appellant claims there is no delay, they must be given an opportunity to present their case and explain why the system might have incorrectly calculated the limitation period. The Court emphasized that this opportunity should be provided by the appellate authority, not just by the online portal. The judgment noted that the petitioner claimed the appeal was filed within time and argued on merits, and at no point was an objection raised by the appellate authority regarding the delay until the final order. Therefore, the petitioner had no occasion to satisfy the authority on the point of delay. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority. The appellate authority is directed to permit the petitioner to explain the objection of delay. If the petitioner satisfies the authority that the appeal was filed within time, the appeal shall be decided on merits. If a delay is found and is liable to be condoned, the appellant will be given an opportunity to file an application for condonation of delay.

Facts

The petitioner, Satish Kumar Mishra, proprietor of M/s Shri Balaji Construction, challenged an order-in-appeal dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), Bhopal. This order dismissed his statutory appeal against an order-in-original dated 06.12.2023, which confirmed a demand, interest, penalty, and late fee under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The dismissal was solely on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner received the GST DRC-07 on 31.12.2023 and filed his appeal on 28.03.2024, believing it to be within the prescribed time. The appellate authority heard the appeal on merits but ultimately dismissed it for being time-barred, without addressing the petitioner's contention that it was filed within limitation. This writ petition was filed as the petitioner felt he was not given an opportunity to explain the alleged delay.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellate authority erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation without affording the petitioner an adequate opportunity to explain the alleged delay, particularly when the petitioner contended that the appeal was filed within the statutory period? The petitioner argued that the appellate authority should have first decided the issue of limitation and given him an opportunity to explain why the appeal was not delayed, especially since he believed it was filed within time. He contended that the appellate authority heard the appeal on merits, implying that the issue of delay was not a primary concern until the final order. The petitioner further argued that the system's flagging of delay on the portal should not preclude him from presenting his case before the authority. The respondent argued that under the GST regime, appeals are filed online, and the portal flags appeals filed after the statutory period. They contended that the petitioner was aware of the delay through the portal and should have filed an application for condonation of delay. The respondent stated that it is the appellant's duty to calculate the limitation period and file a condonation application if necessary, and therefore, the appellate authority did not err in dismissing the appeal on delay.