The High Court possesses extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone delays in filing appeals when an impugned order has not been properly communicated to a party, ensuring no person remains remediless notwithstanding statutory limitations applicable to appellate authorities.

ORDER :

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the appeal was being filed after a delay of beyond the limitation provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act').

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 30.08.2024 was uploaded on the common portal without it being communicated to the petitioner via E-mail address or through phone number or through the other provisions as provided under Section 169 of the Act.

3. Learned counsel submits that a chance must be given to the petitioner to contest the order passed by the respondent on the day itself on which the petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the petitioner has been regularly filing its returns it cannot be said that they did not have the knowledge of original order having been passed at least on the common portal.

5. We find that in judgment passed by this Court in the case of Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 decided on 06.11.2025. The Court held as under :-

"10. In view of the above, it is apparent that the maximum condonation after three months is one month so far as the powers of the Tribunal are concerned. However, in a subsequent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, (2021) 12 SCC 477, the Supreme Court held that while the concerned Tribunal may not have the powers to extend the period of limitations, the powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be curtailed so as to condone the delay in appropriate cases considering the facts and circumstances therein.

11. In “Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.” (supra), the judgment passed in “Tecnimont Private Limited” (supra) has not been noticed.

12. It is settled law that no person can be left remediless if the appeal is barred by limitation. This Court would have to examine the case on merits. However, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough and cannot be fettered by the provisions of law. If in a particular case, we find that in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned, also considering the facts that the knowledge of the order cannot be said to have been gained especially when the e-mail itself dost not reflect the detailed order and the portal does not contain the detailed order, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the order passed by the respondents.

13. We also noticed that when an appeal has been preferred against the order passed relating to the years 2019-2020, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have not availed the remedy of an appeal in relation to the subsequent years had there been knowledge of the passing order. We, therefore, are satisfied that the delay can be condoned in respect to the facts of the present case and allow the petitioner to file the appeal relating to the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of 15 days henceforth, the Appellate Authority shall examine the same on merits and decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereto.

14. It goes without saying that the appeal shall be decided by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

15. Pre-deposit has to be of course made for the purpose.

16. Accordingly, the writ petitio