Facts of the Case:

The present appeal, was filed before the GST Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench against the order passed by the first appellate authority. The respondent challenged the maintainability of the appeal, contending that the Commissioner had passed the review order beyond six months from the date of communication of the order of the first appellate authority and, therefore, the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred.

On behalf of the Revenue, it was submitted that Section 112(3) of the CGST Act, 2017 does not prescribe any limitation period for the Commissioner to review the order of the first appellate authority. The prescribed limitation under Section 112(3), according to the Revenue, applies only to the filing of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. It was further submitted that the appeal had been filed within the extended period prescribed under Section 112(3).

Issue:

Whether an appeal before the GST Appellate Tribunal is rendered non-maintainable merely because the Commissioner’s review order was passed beyond six months from the date of communication of the order of the first appellate authority, when the appeal itself was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Section 112(3) of the CGST Act?

Held That:

The GSTAT rejected the respondent’s preliminary objection regarding maintainability and held that Section 112(3) of the CGST Act does not prescribe any time limit for the Commissioner to review the order passed by the first appellate authority. The Tribunal observed that the limitation contemplated under Section 112(3) is with respect to the filing of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, and not for the Commissioner to undertake the review contemplated under the provision.

Since there was no prescribed limitation period governing the Commissioner’s review under Section 112(3) and it was undisputed that the Revenue had filed the appeal before the Tribunal within the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal found no merit in the respondent’s challenge to the maintainability of the appeal.

Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the objection based on the alleged six-month delay in passing the review order did not render the appeal non-maintainable. The appeal was consequently admitted for consideration on merits, and the matter was listed for hearing on 30 September 2026.

Key Takeaway: Section 112(3) of the CGST Act prescribes limitation for filing the Revenue’s appeal before GSTAT, but does not prescribe a six-month limitation for the Commissioner to pass the review order. Therefore, where the appeal itself is filed within the permissible limitation, a challenge to maintainability solely on the ground that the review order was passed after six months is unsustainable.

Case Name: ATANU MONDAL Versus TEKNO VALVES, PARTNER, CG 165 MAHADEV VILLA SECTOR II BIDHAN NAGAR WBNRP 700091 dated 09.09.2026

Citation No. 2026 Taxo.online 2699