Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 23489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., J
SAJITHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 9047 OF 2026
For the Appellants: E.C. Ahamed Fazil, Shaiq Rasal M.
For the Respondents: Reshmitha R Chandran
A writ petition cannot be entertained when the appeal was submitted beyond the condonable limit of delay and conditions for exception were not fulfilled.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to a writ petition against the dismissal of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, which was rejected due to delay without considering the Notification No. 53 of 2026 enabling appeal submission. The court found no basis to entertain the writ as the petitioner failed to meet conditions for benefit under the notification and displayed negligence in responsive action. The court dismissed the petition, indicating the petitioner retains statutory remedy options.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of appeal due to delay (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's jurisdiction is limited without fulfilling conditions (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal of the 1st appeal submitted under Section 107 of the CGST Act , on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, dismissal of the appeal was without granting the petitioner the benefits of Notification No. 53 of 2026 dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.
2. The facts that led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: Earlier, as against Ext.P1 order of assessment dated 08.02.2022, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the 1st appellate authority as evidenced by Ext.P2. However, the same was submitted beyond the condonable limit of delay in filing the appeal, and therefore, the same was rejected as per Ext.P3, on the ground that, the appellate authority is not empowered to condone the delay beyond the period stipulated in Section 107 . The challenge is raised by the petitioner against Ext.P3 on the ground that, as per Ext.P4, a notification issued by the Central Board of Indirect Tax and Customs, the appeal could have been entertained by the appellate authority.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, I am of the view that the writ petition cannot be entertained. This is because, admittedly, the appeal was submitted beyond the condonable limit of delay. Of course, Ext.P4 notification enabled the petitioner to submit the appeal beyond the said period and also permitted the appellate authority to entertain the same. However, the same was subject to the condition that, the taxpayer should make a pre-deposit of 12.5% of the amount, whereas in this case, the deposit made by the petitioner was only 10%. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner never claimed the benefit of Ext.P4. Moreover, the appellate order was passed as early as 31.12.2024, and this writ petition was submitted only on 05.03.2026, which is after more than one year. Thus, there is gross negligence on the part of the petitioner in prosecuting the matter as well.
In such circumstances, I do not find this as a fit case in which the writ jurisdiction of this Court is to be invoked. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to invoke the statutory remedy, if any, available.
