 and 107(4) cannot be entertained by invoking Section 5 of Limitation Act.){kind=link}
M/s Radhika Furniture @ Radha Devi v. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax & Others
Court: High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Hon’ble Justice Subhash Upadhyay
Lead Case: Writ Petition (M/B) No. 317 of 2025
Order Reserved: 25 March 2026
Order Delivered: 17 July 2026
Category: GST – Appeal – Limitation – Section 107 – Limitation Act
The Uttarakhand High Court, while deciding a common question of law arising in a large batch of GST writ petitions, has held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/UKGST Act has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal beyond the limitation period specifically prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4). The Court further held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands excluded by necessary implication under the GST appellate framework.
Core Issue
The principal question before the High Court was whether an appeal under Section 107 of the Central/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 could be entertained after expiry of the prescribed period of three months and the additional condonable period of one month by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
A connected issue was whether the High Court, notwithstanding dismissal of a statutory appeal on limitation, could examine the challenge to the original order in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Statutory Scheme Under Section 107
Section 107(1) permits an aggrieved person to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within three months from communication of the impugned decision or order.
Section 107(4) enables the Appellate Authority, where sufficient cause is established, to allow presentation of the appeal within a further period of one month.
The Revenue argued that the CGST/SGST enactments constitute special fiscal statutes prescribing both the ordinary limitation period and the maximum additional period during which delay may be condoned. Consequently, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to enlarge this statutory period.
Section 5 of Limitation Act Impliedly Excluded
The High Court accepted the Revenue’s contention and held that the GST enactment creates a specific appellate limitation regime.
The Court relied upon the principle that express exclusion of the Limitation Act is not always necessary. Exclusion can arise by necessary implication where the scheme of a special statute demonstrates the legislative intention to create a complete limitation framework.
The Court referred to several decisions, including Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd., Patel Brothers v. State of Assam, and decisions of various High Courts concerning Section 107 of the GST law.
The Court observed that where the Legislature prescribes not merely the ordinary limitation period but also the precise additional period during which delay may be condoned, the Appellate Authority, being a creature of statute, cannot extend that period through the general provisions of the Limitation Act.
Condonation of Delay Distinguished From Exclusion of Time
The petitioners relied upon decisions concerning Section 14 of the Limitation Act, particularly the principle permitting exclusion of time spent bona fide pursuing proceedings before an incorrect forum.
The High Court distinguished those authorities and emphasised the distinction between condonation of delay and exclusion of time.
Where time is excluded on principles underlying Section 14, the prescribed limitation period itself is not enlarged. In contrast, invoking Section 5 to condone delay beyond the statutory outer limit would effectively extend the limitation period fixed by the Legislature.
Accordingly, decisions dealing with exclusion of time did not assist the petitioners on the issue of condonation beyond Section 107(4).
Supreme Court Decision in S.V. Global Mill Distinguished
The petitioners also relied heavily upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. S.V. Global Mill Ltd., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 171.
The Uttarakhand High Court held that the ruling did not alter the principles applicable to GST appeals.
It noted that S.V. Global Mill Ltd. concerned the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which is a beneficial and welfare-oriented enactment concerning compensation for compulsory acquisition of property. The Supreme Court’s interpretation was influenced by the statutory object and Section 103 of that Act, which expressly provides that its provisions are in addition to and not in derogation of other laws.
The High Court contrasted this with the CGST Act, describing it as a fiscal statute and a self-contained framework governing levy, assessment, recovery and appellate remedies. The limitation prescribed under Section 107 was treated as an integral component of the statutory appellate remedy intended to ensure certainty, finality and expeditious resolution of tax disputes.
The Court therefore concluded that S.V. Global Mill Ltd. did not displace the principles laid down in fiscal matters concerning statutory limitation.
High Court’s Ruling
The High Court ultimately held that the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST/UKGST Act has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) read with Section 107(4).
Consequently, the applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands excluded by necessary implication.
The Court did not find it necessary to separately decide the Revenue’s additional contention that the Commissioner (Appeals) is not a civil court for purposes of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Writ Jurisdiction Kept Open
Importantly, the High Court did not hold that dismissal of a delayed statutory appeal automatically bars recourse to Article 226 in every case.
After deciding the common limitation question, the Court directed that the individual writ petitions be listed separately so that their respective factual circumstances could be examined to determine whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised to test the validity of the original orders despite the appeals having been dismissed as time-barred.
Therefore, the judgment conclusively determines the limitation applicable to the statutory appellate authority, while leaving the exercise of the High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction to be considered on the facts of each individual case.
Ratio Decidendi
Section 107 of the CGST/UKGST Act constitutes a special statutory limitation regime. An appeal must be filed within three months under Section 107(1), with delay condonable only for the further one month contemplated by Section 107(4). The Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal thereafter, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 stands excluded by necessary implication.