Limitation calculation should exclude either communication or filing date when assessing delay for appeals under GST law.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 17.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P.(MD).Nos.8565 and 8566 of 2026 TVL. Surya Traders, Represented by its Proprietrix Lakkiya, GSTIN 33ADPP16836G1ZD ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Appeals), Trichy and Thiruvarur Division, Integrated Commercial Taxes Buildings, 20/1, Sachidhanandha Moopanaar Road, Thanjavur Camp Office, Thanjavur.

2.The State Tax Officer, Mannargudi Assessment Circle, West First Street, Water Tank Building, Mannargudi - 614 001. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the first respondent in Appeal No. and Year AP/GST/1434/2025 dated 25.03.2026 for the assessment year 2017-18 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction consequently direct the first respondent to entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner as within limitation, and dispose of the same on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

25.03.2026. The said order is passed in the appeal filed by the petitioner rejecting the same as beyond the period of limitation. It can be seen that under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the appeal has to be filed within a period of three months and the condonable limit is the further period of one month.

2. In the instant case, upon calculation, it is seen that the period of three months and the further period of one month, in all totaling four months, expired on 25.05.2025. However, since the appeal was filed on 26.05.2025, it was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of one day.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would bring to the notice of this Court that the authority calculated the delay by including both the dates on which the impugned order was communicated and the date of filing, whereas either of the said dates ought to have been excluded.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent though supporting the order of the appellate authority, is not in a position to assert that both days were not included in the calculation.

5. In view thereof, considering that the delay is only one day and that, if one of the said days is excluded, the appeal would fall within the condonable limit, I am of the view that the impugned order calls for interference.

6. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 shall stand set aside and the delay in filing the appeal shall stand condoned. Consequently, the appeal shall stand restored to the file of the 1^st respondent for consideration on merits. The 1^st respondent shall treat the delay as having been condoned and proceed to deal with the appeal in the manner known to law and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law.

7. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.