A time-barred GST appeal cannot be mechanically rejected; condonation requires a reasoned quasi-judicial order after hearing.

The petitioner filed refund applications under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the periods January 2022, March 2022, and April 2022 to March 2023.

The applications were rejected by refund rejection orders dated 28 March 2024, 9 May 2024 and 10 July 2024, allegedly on the basis of CBIC Circular dated 18 November 2019 requiring refund applications to be processed chronologically.

The petitioner thereafter preferred statutory appeals under Section 107 of the CGST Act, accompanied by applications seeking condonation of delay.

The appeals were rejected through Form GST APL-02 acknowledgments/intimations dated 16 December 2024 and 4 February 2025.

The respondents argued that the appeals were beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107(4) and were consequently not accepted by the system.

Whether an appeal filed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, including an appeal accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, could be mechanically rejected through an acknowledgment or ministerial intimation without being placed before the appellate authority?

Whether the appellate authority was required to provide an opportunity of hearing and pass a speaking and reasoned order on the appeal and the application for condonation of delay?

Whether the legality of CBIC Circular dated 18 November 2019, insofar as it required refund applications to be filed or processed chronologically, was liable to be adjudicated in the present proceedings?

The Court applied Section 107 of the CGST Act, particularly Section 107(1), which provides the statutory period for filing an appeal; Section 107(4), which permits condonation of delay for a further period of one month upon sufficient cause; Section 107(8), which mandates an opportunity of hearing; and Section 107(12), which requires the appellate order to be in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

The Court held that a statutory appeal, even if delayed or otherwise allegedly non-maintainable, must be considered by the appellate authority on the quasi-judicial side and cannot be mechanically rejected by the office or through a system-generated acknowledgment.

It further relied on Pankaj Garg v. Meenu Garg, (2013) 3 SCC 246; Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496; Basudev Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3616; Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad, (2012) 4 SCC 407; and Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 600, for the principle that administrative and quasi-judicial decisions affecting rights must be reasoned, speaking orders founded on relevant considerations.

The Court found that the impugned Form GST APL-02 communications merely intimated rejection of the petitioner’s appeals and did not disclose any application of quasi-judicial mind, consideration of the condonation applications, reasons for rejecting the appeals, or compliance with the hearing requirement under Section 107(8).

Although the respondents maintained that the appeals were beyond the permissible statutory period, the Court clarified that this contention had to be examined and determined by the appellate authority through a judicial or quasi-judicial order.

The authority could not allow the electronic system or its office to conclusively reject the appeals without placing them before the appellate authority, hearing the petitioner, and recording reasons.

Since reasons are necessary both to demonstrate application of mind and to enable effective judicial review, the impugned rejection process was held legally unsustainable.

Annexures P-18 and P-19 in both writ petitions were quashed and set aside.

The appellate authority was directed to restore the appeals, consider them along with the applications for condonation of delay, if any, hear the petitioner, and pass appropriate speaking and reasoned orders on the quasi-judicial side.

The Court did not decide the legality of the CBIC Circular dated 18 November 2019 concerning chronological processing of refund applications; liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise that issue in fresh proceedings if circumstances so required.

The writ petitions were accordingly disposed of.