Appellate Authority must exercise discretion to condone delay when procedural uncertainty constitutes sufficient cause.

The Petitioner, a proprietorship firm, was issued a show-cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act, 2017, for the Financial Year 2019-20 regarding discrepancies in Input Tax Credit (ITC)

An Adjudicating Authority passed an Assessment Order on 30.08.2024

The Petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Act on 28.12.2024, resulting in a delay of approximately 25 days beyond the prescribed three-month limitation period

The Petitioner attributed this delay to a bona fide evaluation of newly introduced statutory changes, specifically Section 128A (Amnesty Scheme) and amendments to Section 16, coupled with technical non-operability of the GST portal forms

The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 29.08.2025 solely on the grounds of limitation

1. Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in rejecting the appeal as time-barred when the delay was within the additional one-month condonable period provided under Section 107(4) of the Act

2. Whether the Petitioner established "sufficient cause" for the delay of 25 days in filing the statutory appeal

The Court primarily applied Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, which mandates that an appeal must be filed within three months [Section 107(1)], but grants the Appellate Authority discretion to allow an additional one month if "sufficient cause" is shown

The Court also referenced Section 128A of the Act, introduced by the Finance Act, 2024, regarding the waiver of interest and penalty, and the procedural requirements of Rule 164

The Court observed that while the statutory period for filing the appeal expired on 30.11.2024, the appeal was filed on 28.12.2024, which fell within the one-month discretionary window provided under Section 107(4)

The Court found the Petitioner’s explanation for the 25-day delay—necessitated by the need to evaluate overlapping statutory amendments and portal constraints regarding the Amnesty Scheme—to be a valid and "sufficient cause"

It held that the Appellate Authority failed to properly exercise its discretionary power to condone the delay and instead rejected the appeal mechanically

The Court emphasized that when a delay is within the condonable period and is adequately explained, authorities should prioritize justice on merits over technicalities of limitation

The Court held that the Petitioner had satisfactorily explained the delay as required by Section 107(4)

The matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority for a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits, with a direction to the Petitioner to fully cooperate with the proceedings

Rule made absolute