High Court May Condon GST Appeal Delay Beyond the Statutory Limit on Additional Pre-Deposit

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 13 November 2025 and the appellate authority’s order dated 11 June 2026 rejecting its appeal as time-barred.

The petitioner had filed the appeal on 6 June 2026, 85 days late, attributing the delay to its authorised representative’s failure to file in time.

It stated that it had paid the statutory 10% pre-deposit and offered to pay an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount.

The respondents opposed relief, contending that the notices and orders had been uploaded and the petitioner had failed to appeal within time.

Whether the appellate authority’s rejection of the appeal as time-barred should be set aside and the 85-day delay condoned in the circumstances of the case

Whether condonation should be made conditional on payment of an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount, over and above the statutory pre-deposit

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider the challenge to the appellate rejection order.

The judgment does not identify a specific GST provision, statutory limitation period, or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It proceeded on the stated statutory pre-deposit of 10% and, in the circumstances of this case, granted relief subject to an additional 5% payment

The Court accepted the petitioner’s explanation that the 85-day delay resulted from its authorised representative’s failure to file the appeal and found that explanation genuine

Although the respondents attributed the default to the petitioner, the Court was inclined to condone the delay on terms.

Having noted the existing 10% pre-deposit and the petitioner’s offer, it required an additional 5% of the disputed tax amount

Upon payment, the appellate authority was directed to take the appeal on record and decide it on the merits and in accordance with law, after giving the petitioner sufficient opportunity.

The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed