A GST appeal delay beyond the condonable period may be condoned on additional pre-deposit.

The petitioner challenged a Section 73 GST assessment order dated 13 August 2024, a suo motu rectification order dated 10 December 2024, and the appellate authority’s order dated 31 December 2025 rejecting his appeal as delayed by 414 days.

He attributed the delay to being unaware of the assessment order—stating that his accountant had not communicated it and that he learned of it after his bank account was attached on 22 April 2025; he also submitted that he had exited the business.

The petitioner had paid 10% of the disputed tax as pre-deposit and agreed to pay an additional 10%.

The State opposed relief, attributing the delay to the petitioner.

Whether the 414-day delay in filing the statutory appeal could be condoned despite being beyond the condonable period.

Whether the appellate rejection and the consequential bank-account attachment should be set aside, subject to payment of an additional amount.

The assessment order was passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the dispute concerned the time limit for filing an appeal and the statutory limit on condoning delay.

The judgment identifies no specific appellate provision or precedent.

Exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226, the Court granted relief on terms, directing payment of an additional 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for the setting aside of the appellate rejection order to take effect.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation—that he remained unaware of the assessment order—as genuine and considered it sufficient to warrant condonation of the delay, notwithstanding that it exceeded the condonable period.

It balanced that relief against the length of the delay by requiring an additional 10% payment, which the petitioner had agreed to make.

Because the appellate rejection was being set aside on that condition, the Court also held that the bank attachment could not continue and directed its release upon proof of payment.

If the original appeal had been completely rejected, the petitioner was to file a fresh appeal, with a copy of the order, within two weeks of payment; the appellate authority was then to hear and decide it on merits after giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

The respondents were directed to instruct the bank to release the attachment and permit operation of the account upon proof of payment.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.