First Appellate Authority Cannot Condone Delay Beyond Section 107(4), But Revenue Appeal Infructuous: GSTAT Hyderabad

GSTAT Hyderabad found the appellate authority acted beyond its powers in admitting a time-barred registration appeal, yet rejected the Department’s challenge because officers had already restored the taxpayer’s registration under that order.

GSTAT Hyderabad has held that a first appellate authority has no power to condone delay beyond the outer limit in Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, but that the Department cannot challenge such an order once it has implemented it by restoring the taxpayer’s registration. [Timmasarti Venkateswara Rao v. Teqdatum Technologies Private Limited, 2026-juristway.com-3142-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST]

The Bench of A P Ravi, Member (Judicial), and Duvvuri Krishna Srinivas, Member (Technical), disposed of the Department’s appeal under Section 112 as not maintainable. The respondent neither appeared nor filed cross-objections.

The respondent’s registration was cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) read with Rule 21(h) for failing to file returns for six continuous months in 2022-23. Its appeal was filed beyond both the three months allowed by Section 107(1) and the further one month under Section 107(4).

The first appellate authority condoned the delay, relying on M/s. Southern Enterprises v. State of Telangana, on condition that all dues were paid. The respondent paid, its registration was restored, and it has since been filing returns.

The Department contended that the authority assumed a jurisdiction the statute did not give it. Its representative accepted that the facts matched the Tribunal’s common orders Nos. 04-19/COURT-II/HYD/2026 dated 18 Sep 2026, which the Bench followed.

Applying those orders, the Bench held that the authority is “a creature of the statute” and that High Court decisions under Article 226, rendered on their own facts, do not enlarge its power of condonation. The condonation was therefore beyond Section 107(4).

However, having given effect to the order and restored the registration, the Department could not now attack it. The Bench held that this would be unfair and contrary to estoppel and orderly administration, and would expose the respondent’s intervening transactions to retrospective cancellation. With no effective relief possible, the appeal was held infructuous. No costs were awarded.

2026-juristway.com-3142-GSTAT(Hyderabad)-GST