The Allahabad High Court, in M/s Priya Medical Stores v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, examined whether a GST appellate authority could reject a delayed appeal without properly considering the specific grounds stated in the delay-condonation application. The judgment was delivered on 24 July 2026 in Writ Tax No. 3087 of 2026 by Hon’ble Justice Vikas Budhwar.
The petitioner was a registered dealer under the UPGST and CGST Acts. A show-cause notice under Section 73(1) had been issued for the financial year 2018–19 on the basis of an alleged discrepancy between Form 26AS and the GST report. As the petitioner claimed that it was unaware of the proceedings, an ex parte adjudication order was passed on 27 April 2024.
The petitioner initially approached the High Court against the adjudication order. That writ petition was disposed of on 21 January 2026, leaving the petitioner free to pursue the statutory appellate remedy. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner Grade-II (Appeal)-VI, State Tax, Kanpur, together with an explanation for the delay.
In the delay-condonation grounds, the petitioner stated that it became aware of the adjudication order only on 11 January 2026, immediately consulted legal counsel, filed the earlier writ petition and, after being directed to avail the appellate remedy, proceeded to prepare and file the statutory appeal.
The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 17 April 2026 as time-barred. It relied on the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the GST enactment and observed that the authority could condone delay only for the additional period permitted by the statute. However, the High Court found that the appellate order did not actually examine the factual explanation furnished by the petitioner.
The Court observed that a conjoint reading of the delay-condonation grounds and the appellate order demonstrated that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner had been considered. The rejection order appeared to have been passed in a cyclostyled manner by merely reproducing the statutory limitation provisions and earlier judicial authorities.
Emphasising that an appeal is a statutory right, the High Court held that the appellate order could not be sustained when the grounds placed in support of the delay-condonation request had not been considered. Importantly, the Court did not itself condone the delay or decide the appeal on merits. It restored the delay-condonation application and directed the appellate authority to decide it afresh.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the appellate order dated 17 April 2026, subject to payment of ₹5,000 as costs. The delay-condonation application accompanying the GST appeal was restored to its original number, and the appellate authority was directed to decide it within two months from the date on which the certified copy of the High Court’s order is produced.
Key Legal Principle
A GST appellate authority must apply its mind to the specific facts and explanations stated in a delay-condonation application. An appeal cannot be rejected through a standardised or mechanical order that merely refers to statutory limitation without addressing the grounds actually raised by the appellant.
Significance of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces the requirement of reasoned decision-making in GST appellate proceedings. Although statutory limitation remains binding, the authority considering a delay-condonation request must examine the explanation placed before it and record a reasoned conclusion. The decision is relevant for taxpayers and professionals dealing with ex parte GST demands, delayed appeals, portal-based communication and orders rejected through non-speaking or template-based reasoning.
