Orissa HC Condones 8‑Day Delay in GST Appeal, Restores Taxpayer’s Right to Be Heard [Read Order]
The Court held that small procedural delays should not override substantive rights if the appeal is filed within the condonable period allowed under Section 107(4) of the OGST Act
![Orissa HC Condones 8‑Day Delay in GST Appeal, Restores Taxpayer’s Right to Be Heard [Read Order]](https://images.taxscan.in/h-upload/2026/02/04/2123732-orissa-hc-condones-8day-delay-gst-appeal-taxscan.webp "Orissa HC Condones 8‑Day Delay in GST Appeal, Restores Taxpayer’s Right to Be Heard [Read Order]")
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court set aside the rejection of a GST appeal filed with a short delay, holding that sufficient cause was shown and that principles of natural justice required the taxpayer to be allowed to explain the delay. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Debasish Nandi, challenging the rejection order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the...
In a recent ruling, the Orissa High Court set aside the rejection of a GST appeal filed with a short delay, holding that sufficient cause was shown and that principles of natural justice required the taxpayer to be allowed to explain the delay.
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Debasish Nandi, challenging the rejection order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner of State Tax (Appeal). The rejection was made because the petitioner failed to respond to a notice dated 06.12.2025 during the pendency of his appeal against a demand order of ₹9,55,640 raised under Section 73 of the OGST Act for FY 2023‑24.
The petitioner argued that the appeal, though filled on The petitioner argued that the appeal, though filed on 27.11.2025, was delayed by only 8 days beyond the statutory three‑month limit, and was still within the condonable period of one month permitted under Section 107(4).
Also Read:Centre removes GST export refund threshold under Section 54(14); awaits Gazette notification
Also submitted that the delay occurred due to medical treatment, which prevented timely compliance with the notice. Counsel contended that the Appellate Authority ought to have exercised discretion liberally and allowed an explanation of the delay.
On the other hand, the revenue opposed the plea and argued that the rejection was justified since the petitioner had failed to respond to the notice and that no sufficient cause was made out.
After hearing both sides high court held that the Petitioner is required to be given one opportunity to justify that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. Also, the Department had not produced any evidence to disprove the petitioner’s explanation,
The high court set aside the rejection of the order dated 23.12.2025, and the petitioner was directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on or before 02.03.2026 and file his response to the notice dated 06.12.2025.
The bench, Chief Justice Harish Tandon, and Justice Murahari Sri Raman, held that the Appellate Authority was directed to consider the explanation after granting a hearing.
Accordingly, after making the observations and issuing directions, concluded the matter and disposed of the writ petition.Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
