No Writ Remedy if Appeal filed Beyond Maximum Specified Period under Section 107 of the CGST Act

The Bombay High Court has ruled that it cannot entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an appeal has not been filed within the time limits set by Section 107 of the CGST Act. This includes the initial three-month period and the additional one-month condonable period. The court emphasised that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be used to bypass statutory appeal timelines.

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of MAP Overseas v. Union of India & Ors. [WRIT PETITION NO. 8229 OF 2025, order dated August 25, 2025] held that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition challenging an order where the assessee have failed to file appeals within the prescribed period of limitation or the maximum condonable period under Section 107(1) and 107(4) of the CGST Act.

Facts:

MAP Overseas ("the Petitioner") is a business entity engaged in GST-related transactions, who challenged an Original Order dated May 23, 2023, which was adverse to them. MAP Overseas filed an appeal before the appellate authority on October 17, 2023, challenging the Original Order.

The Union of India and other authorities ("the Respondents") imposed GST demands and rejected the appeal on December 19, 2024, on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.

The Petitioner contended that the Original Order was never communicated to them, and therefore the appeal was within the prescribed limitation period or maximum condonable period. The Respondent contended that the appeal was time-barred as it was filed beyond the maximum condonable period of one month beyond the three-month deadline under Section 107(1) and (4) of the CGST Act.

The Petitioner approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief against the decision dismissing the appeal on limitation grounds.

Issue:

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution when the appellant fails to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period or even within the maximum condonable period under Section 107 of the CGST Act?

Held:

The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 8229 Of 2025 held as under:

· Observed that, Section 107(1) prescribes a three-month limitation period from the date of communication of the order to file an appeal, with a one-month extension under Section 107(4) on sufficient cause.

· Noted that, the Petitioner filed the appeal beyond the maximum condonable period of four months from the communication of the order, which is impermissible.

· Held that, the plea of non-communication of the Original Order has no merit since the burden to prove non-delivery lies on the Petitioner, and no sufficient evidence was produced.

· Noted that, the Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked to override the legislative intent reflected in Section 107 limitation provisions and rejected the writ petition upholding the dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority on limitation grounds.

Our Comments:

This judgment reinforces the strict adherence to limitation periods prescribed under Section 107 CGST Act for preferring appeals before the Appellate Authority. The Court's reliance on binding Supreme Court precedents reflects the principle that extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot substitute statutory appeal remedies and cannot extend limitation timelines legislated by Parliament. The decision highlights the importance for taxpayers to vigilantly monitor communication and limitation periods, as procedural lapses cannot be remedied by writ petitions post-expiry of the maximum condonable period.

This judgment aligns with the principle in Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India [2021 SCC OnLine Bom 6126] which confirms that statutory limitation and extended limitation periods exclude Section 5 of Limitation Act and non-extension beyond the prescribed max limit. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Kakinada & Ors Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited [(2020) 19 SCC 681] and ONGC v. Gujarat Energy Transmission [(2017) 5 SCC 42], the Court underscored that powers under Article 226 cannot be exercised when statutory appeal periods along with maximum condonable periods have expired.

Relevant Provisions:

Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017:

"107. Appeals to Appellate Authority-

(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.

…

(4) The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month."

OFFICIAL JUDGMENT COPY HAS BEEN ATTACHED