Facts of the Case:

In this case, the petitioner challenged an order dated 9 May 2025 whereby the Appellate Authority rejected his GST appeal against an assessment order dated 29 April 2024. The appeal was rejected through Form GST APL-02, noting that it was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the MGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended before the High Court that he gained knowledge of the assessment order only on 31 March 2025, and therefore, the appeal filed thereafter was within the prescribed period if limitation was computed from the date of knowledge rather than the date of the assessment order. 

The petitioner argued that rejecting the appeal without granting any hearing violated principles of natural justice, especially since the rejection entailed serious civil consequences by foreclosing his statutory right to appeal. The State opposed the petition, arguing that the Appellate Authority had no statutory power to condone delay beyond 120 days (90 days plus a further condonable 30 days), and therefore, no hearing was required where the appeal was admittedly filed beyond that ceiling.

Issue:

Whether an appellate authority under the MGST Act can reject an appeal as time-barred without granting an opportunity of hearing, particularly when the assessee asserts that limitation should be computed from the date of knowledge of the order, raising an arguable factual and legal dispute.

Held that:

The Court observed that even though Section 107 does not expressly mandate a hearing before rejecting an appeal for limitation, the principles of natural justice must be read into the “unoccupied interstices” of the statute, unless specifically excluded. Reliance placed upon Supreme Court decisions in ICAI v. L.K. Ratna and S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, the Court emphasized that orders causing civil consequences cannot be passed without adherence to natural justice.  It held that the Appellate Authority could not presume delay solely on the basis of the date of the original assessment order. Since the petitioner claimed to have received knowledge only on 31 March 2025, the Appellate Authority was required to consider this plea after hearing him. Consequently, the impugned order dated 9 May 2025 was quashed and the matter was remanded to the Appellate Authority to determine the limitation issue afresh after granting a hearing. 

The High Court held that the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the appeal as time-barred without granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, especially when the petitioner’s contention regarding the date of knowledge created a bona fide and arguable issue.

Case Name: Yogeshwari Petrochemicals Private Limited Versus The State Of Maharashtra dated 05.12.2025

To read the complete judgement 2025 taxo.online 3251