The GSTAT Hyderabad Bench (Court II) has disposed of a batch of 16 departmental appeals arising from registration cancellation cases, holding on the jurisdictional question that the First Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 107(4) by condoning delays well beyond the maximum period of 3+1 months — as a statutory authority cannot, by any process of ‘judicial osmosis’, transplant the extraordinary jurisdiction exercised by a constitutional court under Article 226 into its own statutory powers. The ruling by Members A.P. Ravi (JM) and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas (TM) in APL/55 and batch/HYD/2026 (Order Nos. 04 to 19/Court-II/HYD/2026, decided 18.09.2026) however dismissed all 16 appeals as infructuous and not maintainable, holding that the Department had already implemented the impugned orders by restoring all respondents’ registrations, and cannot now simultaneously rely upon those orders for restoration and seek their annulment.
The Tribunal drew the critical distinction between the ratio of a High Court judgment and the relief moulded in extraordinary circumstances: the HC orders in Southern Enterprises and Chenna Krishnama Charyulu directed the FAA to consider belated appeals on merits in the peculiar facts before it, but did not lay down any general proposition enlarging the FAA’s jurisdiction. Equity follows the law (aequitas sequitur legem) and cannot be invoked by a statutory authority to override an express legislative prescription. On the practical question, the Tribunal noted that allowing the appeals would imperil genuine transactions undertaken by the respondents and their recipients during the intervening period, and observed that the Department displayed serious negligence by implementing the orders, remaining silent for years, and filing appeals only after the Tribunal’s constitution as an afterthought.
- 2026-juristway.com-2799-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST | GSTAT Hyderabad Bench (Court II) | APL/55 & batch/HYD/2026 | 18.09.2026
