A recent decision of the Gujarat High Court has reinforced a hard but important reality under GST: appeal timelines are rigid, and once the statutory “outer limit” is crossed, neither the Appellate Authority nor the High Court can revive the appeal by condoning the delay—even under Article 226 of the Constitution.

This is a strong compliance signal for taxpayers, CFOs, and tax teams: litigation rights under GST are time-bound, and missing deadlines can permanently shut the door on merits.

What the judgment held and what it means

In M/s Agrawal Enterprises vs State of Gujarat (judgment dated 16 January 2026), the petitioner filed a Section 107 appeal 284 days after the demand order, well beyond the maximum permissible period. The appeal was rejected as time-barred, and the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief under Article 226.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and clarified that:

  • Section 107 timelines operate in a strict framework (90 days + condonable 30 days).

  • Once 120 days (aggregate) are exhausted, delay cannot be condoned.

  • Writ jurisdiction cannot be used to override legislative intent embedded in limitation provisions.

The Court also emphasized taxpayer vigilance—especially because GST orders are communicated through the portal and electronic modes, and taxpayers are expected to regularly verify proceedings.

Business takeaway: Courts may sympathize, but they will not re-write limitation law. The safest strategy is simple: never miss the clock.

Hence, businesses should strictly adhere to statutory timelines

This case is a classic example of how procedural slippage becomes a substantive loss. Even if a taxpayer believes there are strong grounds on merits, those grounds may never be heard if the appeal is filed beyond the statutory cap.

In practical terms, limitation is a business risk, not just a legal concept. Missed deadlines can lead to:

  • irreversible tax demands,

  • blocked recovery options,

  • avoidable writ costs and uncertainty,

  • reputational exposure during recovery proceedings.

GST appeal timelines: the technical framework you must know

1) First Appeal (Section 107, CGST Act)

  • Normal limitation: 3 months (90 days) from the date of communication of the order.

  • Condonation: Appellate Authority may allow a further period of 1 month (30 days) if satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause.

  • Outer limit: 120 days (90 + 30). After this, the appeal is not maintainable.

2) Why Article 226 doesn’t “extend” limitation here

The Court reiterated the principle that writ jurisdiction is wide, but it cannot be used to defeat explicit legislative intent or make statutory limitation “optional.”

Practical learning: 5 actions businesses should implement to avoid this situation

1) Create a “GST Order Intake” protocol (same day)

Every order/notice received (email/SMS/portal) should be logged on the same day into a tracker with:

  • order date,

  • date of communication,

  • last date for appeal (90 days),

  • last date for condonation (120 days),

  • responsible owner.

2) Set automated alerts for Day 15 / Day 45 / Day 75

Most limitation misses happen due to “we’ll do it next week.” Alerts force decision-making early and leave buffer for:

  • pre-deposit arrangements,

  • document collation,

  • portal issues.

3) Weekly portal hygiene (non-negotiable)

The Court’s caution around vigilance is significant—assign a team member to verify:

  • orders uploaded,

  • notices, SCNs,

  • DRC forms,

  • appellate communications.

4) Don’t rely on a single individual (accountant dependency risk)

A recurring pattern in adverse limitation cases is over-dependence on one resource. Build redundancy:

  • at least two trained users for GST portal,

  • documented SOPs,

  • escalation matrix if an order is received.

5) Take “appeal decision” within 30 days of order

Whether you appeal or not, decide quickly. A good internal rule:

  • Merits + quantum + risk assessment within 30 days,

  • management approval within 45 days,

  • drafting and filing well before 90 days.

Conclusion: Legal remedies exist, but timelines are the law

The Gujarat High Court ruling is a timely reminder that GST is a time-bound statute. Once the statutory outer limit is crossed, “good reasons” may not help—because the law restricts both the appellate authority and the High Court from extending limitation beyond the cap.

For businesses, the right learning is not “can we get relief in writ,” but: How do we ensure we never need to ask for it?

A strong litigation governance framework—order tracking, portal monitoring, and disciplined internal timelines—remains the best protection against becoming time-barred under GST.