In two cases, the Madras and Allahabad High Courts set aside appellate orders rejecting GST appeals for delay, one filed within the condonable month and one dismissed by a one-line order.

Two High Courts have set aside orders of first appellate authorities that rejected GST appeals on the ground of delay without engaging with the appellants’ explanations, and sent the appeals back for fresh decision. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy of the Madras High Court and Justice Vikas Budhwar of the Allahabad High Court decided the two writ petitions [Pavni Engineering Private Limited v. Deputy Commissioner (CT), Appellate Authority, Chengalpattu, 2026-juristway.com-3213-HC(Madras)-GST; Amit Engineering Corporation v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3216-HC(Allahabad)-GST].

Pavni Engineering. The petitioner’s appeal of 9 Oct 2026, filed with a condonation application against an assessment order of 10 Jun 2026 confirming ₹10,72,564, was rejected in FORM GST APL‑02 on 12 Oct 2026 for “delay in submission of appeal”, without a hearing. It said the delay was 29 days, within the condonable month ending 10 Oct 2026, and was caused by its director’s maternity leave, while the Government Advocate said the appeal was beyond the condonable period of 120 days. The Court held the appeal to be within the time prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, found the reason genuine and condoned the delay. The appeal is to be re-presented within two weeks of receipt of the order and decided on merits after a hearing.

Amit Engineering. An ex parte order of 26 Dec 2025 for 2021-22, imposing tax, interest and penalty totalling ₹2,51,64,081 although a reply had been filed on 27 Nov 2025, was appealed two months late, and the appeal was rejected on 3 Jun 2026 by a one-line order citing delay under Rule 108(3). The Standing Counsel defended the rejection but could not dispute that cyclostyled orders are impermissible. Holding that an appellant seeking condonation is entitled to fair consideration of its grounds, the Court observed that “Reasons are heartbeats and conclusion should be supported by reasons”. It set aside the appellate order and remitted the matter for a speaking order within two months, leaving the petitioner free to challenge the original order later.

In both cases, the appellate authorities must now decide the appeals afresh after considering the grounds for delay. Neither Court examined the merits of the underlying demands.

2026-juristway.com-3213-HC(Madras)-GST | 2026-juristway.com-3216-HC(Allahabad)-GST