GST Payers Must Remain Vigilant of Portal Orders, Says Gujarat HC as it Rejects Appeal Delay Beyond 120 Days [Read Order]

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed a writ petition that was filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days. It was ruled that taxpayers under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime must remain vigilant of orders uploaded on the portal

Agrawal Enterprises, the petitioner, is a partnership firm registered under GST. it faced a demand order dated 21 March 2024 under Section 74(5) of the CGST/SGST Act, raising a liability of ₹5,03,768 (tax, interest, and penalty). The firm claimed it became aware of the order only on 30 March 2025 and subsequently attempted to file an appeal.

The appellate authority rejected the appeal on 30 September 2025, citing delay beyond the permissible period. Under Section 107(4) of the GST Act, appeals must be filed within 90 days, with a further condonable period of 30 days. Agrawal Enterprises had filed its appeal after 284 days, which exceeded the statutory limit.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that the firm was unaware of the demand order due to a lack of computer knowledge and reliance on a part‑time accountant. It was also argued that notices of personal hearing were uploaded on the portal but not communicated via post or email, preventing attendance.

It was contended that the appellate authority failed to consider genuine hardship and financial loss to a small partnership firm. It was also argued that the courts have consistently held that statutory appeals should not be rejected solely on technical grounds of delay when justifiable reasons exist.

The Assistant Government Pleader contended that the appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond 120 days. Also, the High Court, under Article 226, cannot override legislative intent and extend limitations. It was also contended that the petitioner’s reasons of lack of computer literacy and the accountant’s illness were not sufficient cause.

The Division Bench of Justice A.S. Supehia and Justice Pranav Trivedi upheld the rejection, observing that the taxpayers are expected to remain vigilant of all proceedings and verify orders on the GST portal.

It was further observed that excuses such as lack of computer knowledge or reliance on accountants are not acceptable in today’s digital era. It was also observed that the taxing statutes operate in a very strict time frame, and any relaxation or easing of the limitation period will have a cascading effect on the functioning of the revenue.

Also, Section 107(4) strictly limits condonation to 30 days beyond the initial 90‑day period; once 120 days lapse, neither appellate authority nor the High Court can extend time.

The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Glaxo SmithKline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. (2020) and Singh Enterprises v. CCE (2007), which held that statutory timelines in tax laws are mandatory and cannot be diluted by invoking writ jurisdiction.

Thus, the writ petition was dismissed.