The goal of this article is to cover all recent GST case laws February 2025. All latest high court judgement on gst and all latest supreme court judgments on gst issued in February 2025 have been covered in this article. All latest GST case laws of February 2025 in this article have been classified by name, date, judge, counsel, GST concept, GST section, etc. In addition, a PDF of the GST case law is provided with the case law so that the user can download it for further study.
GST Case laws on Incorrect Interpretation of Limitation period in GST Appeal
Patna High Court says appellate authority should have considered the reason for the delay.
| Patna High Court Judgement 2025 |
| Name of case : Brand Protection Services (P.) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar |
| Date of Judgment : 04-02-2025 |
| Appeal No : Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14957 of 2024 |
| Judges : Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Ramesh chand Malviya, JJ. |
| Counsel Name : Anubhav Khowala, |
| Fact of the Case: The petitioner was issued a show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the GST Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018, demanding tax along with interest and penalty. In response, the petitioner requested an additional 15 days to reconcile purchase details due to the unavailability of one of its suppliers. However, before the reconciliation could be completed, the final demand order was issued under Section 73(9), along with a summary order in Form DRC-07. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal in Form GST APL-01 on April 26, 2024, under Section 107, citing the ill health of the director as the reason for the delay. However, the appeal was rejected at the admission stage because it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The revenue authorities interpreted the limitation period as 120 days (three months plus a one-month condonable delay period), whereas the petitioner argued that the correct interpretation should be four calendar months instead of 120 days. The dispute revolves around the correct calculation of the appeal period and whether the petitioner’s delay should have been condoned. |
| Held by court : According to various court rulings, the three-month period mentioned in Section 107(1) and the one-month extension period under Section 107(4) should be counted based on actual calendar months rather than a fixed 90 days and 30 days. Additionally, the date of receipt of the order should be excluded when calculating the limitation period. In this case, the petitioner received the order from the adjudicating authority on 27-12-2023. Therefore, the three-month period ended on 27-03-2024. Since the petitioner filed the appeal on 26-04-2024, it was within the additional one-month extension period, which ended on 27-04-2024. This means the appellate authority should have considered the reason for the delay and had the power to condone it. However, the authority mistakenly interpreted the limitation period incorrectly and rejected the appeal outright. As a result, the appellate order rejecting the appeal was legally incorrect and had to be set aside. |
| In favor of : Assessee |
| Topic of GST : Appeals to appellate authority |
| Section of GST: Section 107 of CGST Act,2017 |
Download PDF of Patna High Court Judgement of M/s Brand Protection Services Pvt Ltd
