Facts of the Case

Hikal Ltd's application for transitional credit was rejected by an order dated 21.02.2023 following a notice and reply process before the jurisdictional officer. Ordinarily, an appeal against this order under Section 107(1) and (4) of the KGST Act would need to be filed within four months, but the Central Government's Notification No.29/2023 dated 31.07.2023 extended the appeal window to three months from that notification, i.e. up to 31.10.2023. The petitioner filed its appeal precisely on 31.10.2023 — the last permissible date — yet the appellate authority dismissed it as time-barred, apparently without considering the notification.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an appeal filed on the exact last date permitted under Central Notification No.29/2023 can be dismissed as barred by limitation.
  2. Whether the appellate authority's failure to take note of the special extension notification rendered its dismissal order erroneous.
  3. What relief follows once such an oversight by the appellate authority is established.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Argued that the appeal was filed on 31.10.2023, precisely the last date permitted under Notification No.29/2023, and could not have been treated as time-barred.
  • Contended that the appellate authority's order failed to even consider or refer to the extension notification while dismissing the appeal.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The AGA for the respondents did not point to any consideration of Notification No.29/2023 in the impugned order, the dismissal having proceeded purely on the ordinary limitation computation.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the appellate authority had failed to consider or take into account Notification No.29/2023, which had specifically enabled taxpayers to file appeals up to 31.10.2023.
  • Held that the impugned order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was clearly erroneous and contrary to the notification, warranting interference, since the appeal had in fact been filed on the last permissible date.
  • Set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for reconsideration on merits, holding that the appeal is within time and not barred by limitation.
  • Directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

Important Clarification

  • When the Central Government issues a specific notification extending the window for filing GST appeals (such as Notification No.29/2023), appellate authorities are bound to take note of it, and dismissing an appeal filed within that extended window as time-barred is a clear jurisdictional error.
  • Once the High Court finds such an appeal to be timely, it does not simply remand the limitation question — it conclusively holds the appeal to be within time, foreclosing any re-litigation of limitation before the appellate authority.

Sections Involved

  • Section 107(1) and (4), KGST Act, 2017 – prescribes the ordinary limitation and condonable period for filing appeals.
  • Central Notification No.29/2023 (dated 31.07.2023) – extended the appeal filing window for eligible taxpayers to three months from the date of notification.

Decision – In Favour of

Allowed in favour of the assessee, with the appellate dismissal set aside and the appeal held to be within time, remitted for consideration on merits.

Case Details

  • Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
  • Case No.: Writ Petition No. 23361 of 2024 (T-RES)
  • Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar
  • Date of Order: 10 December 2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.