Case Details: Mahesh Value Products (P.) Ltd. vs. Chief Commissioner of CT & GST [2026] 187 taxmann.com 305 (Orissa)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Mruganka Sekhar Saho & Murahari Sri Raman, JJ.
- Madhab Lal Agarwal, Adv. for the Petitioner.
- Sourav Tibrewal, Addl. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate authority, rejecting its appeal, as time-barred. The adjudication order was communicated through the common portal, and the appeal was filed. Pursuant to a show cause notice alleging a delay of 31 days, the petitioner submitted that the appeal was filed within the condonable period contemplated under Section 107 and contended that the limitation period extended. Accordingly, the petitioner assailed the rejection order as based on an erroneous computation of the limitation period. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the appellate authority had erroneously computed the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act and Odisha GST Act. The Court held that where a period is prescribed as a calendar month commencing from a particular date, such period expires on the day in the succeeding month immediately preceding the corresponding date from which the period commenced. Applying the Section 107 to the facts of the case, the Court found that the appellate authority had committed an apparent error in concluding that the appeal was filed beyond the statutory outer limit. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellate authority.
List of Cases Referred to
- Skoda Auto Volkswagen India (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner (Appeals) [2021] 125 taxmann.com 241/50 GSTL 67 (Bombay) (para 7.1)
- Dr. Bharat Chandra Bhuyan v. Commissioner (Appeals), GST, CX & Customs [WP(C) No.7612 of 2025, dated 13-5-2025] (para 7.2)
The post GST Appeal Rejection Set Aside Due to Wrong Limitation Calculation | HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
