GST Appeal Filed Beyond 120-Day Limit Not Condonable: Jharkhand HC Dismisses Writ Petition [Read Order]
The High Court held that failure to file a GST appeal within the prescribed 120-day limitation bars writ relief and such delay cannot be condoned.
![GST Appeal Filed Beyond 120-Day Limit Not Condonable: Jharkhand HC Dismisses Writ Petition [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/04/08/2132439-gst-appeal-filed-beyond-120-day-limit-not-condonablejpg.webp "GST Appeal Filed Beyond 120-Day Limit Not Condonable: Jharkhand HC Dismisses Writ Petition [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained where a taxpayer fails to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period of 120 days under the GST law, and such delay cannot be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction. V.S. Enterprises, through its proprietor Sunil Kumar Verma, filed a writ petition challenging...
In a recent ruling, the Jharkhand High Court held that a writ petition cannot be entertained where a taxpayer fails to file a statutory appeal within the prescribed limitation period of 120 days under the GST law, and such delay cannot be condoned by invoking writ jurisdiction.
V.S. Enterprises, through its proprietor Sunil Kumar Verma, filed a writ petition challenging the Order-in-Original dated 26.08.2024 and subsequent recovery proceedings initiated under Sections 73 and 79 of the CGST Act, 2017.
The petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal against the Order-in-Original. Under Section 107 of the CGST Act, the appeal was required to be filed within 90 days, with a further extension of 30 days allowed on showing sufficient cause.
Read More: ICAI Invites Feedback on GSTAT Portal Amid Technical, ProceduralIssues
The petitioner did not file any appeal within this period and instead approached the High Court by filing a writ petition on 27 February 2026, which was far beyond the total permissible period of 120 days.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned orders and recovery proceedings were liable to be set aside and sought relief directly under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy by way of appeal, which was not availed within the prescribed limitation period.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar observed that the petitioner had an adequate statutory remedy but failed to exercise it within the time allowed under law.
The court explained that the limitation period for filing an appeal is mandatory, and once the extended period of 120 days has expired, the delay cannot be condoned.
The court further pointed out that the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT) v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. and Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India has held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when a statutory remedy is available, especially when the petitioner has failed to avail such remedy due to his own fault.
The court also observed that allowing such writ petitions would defeat the statutory scheme and permit parties to bypass the appellate mechanism prescribed under the law.
The court held that since the petitioner did not file the appeal within the prescribed time and approached the High Court after the expiry of limitation, the writ petition could not be entertained. The court dismissed the writ petition and declined to grant any relief. No costs were imposed.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
