Karnataka High Court Allows Belated GST Appeal of Sunrise Crop Science on Medical Grounds

Background of the Dispute

The matter in Sunrise Crop Science Vs Commercial Tax Officer came before the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 103110 of 2026 (T-RES). The assessee challenged the rejection of its statutory GST appeal by the Joint Commissioner, who had dismissed the appeal as being filed beyond the maximum period allowed under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

The writ petition sought:

  • Quashing of the appellate order dated 18.10.2025 passed in Appeal No. GST-413/2024-25 ARN NO.AD290724007385X, and
  • Any further relief considered appropriate in the circumstances.

The controversy arose from the original order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO) under Section 73(9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order, marked as Annexure-A in the writ petition, formed the subject matter of the statutory appeal.

Statutory Order and Appeal Timeline

Original Order under Section 73(9)

  • Respondent No.1, the Commercial Tax Officer, passed an order under Section 73(9) on 16.12.2023.
  • This order dealt with proceedings under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and was adverse to Sunrise Crop Science.

Date of Communication

Although the order was issued on 16.12.2023, the material on record before the Court showed that it was communicated to the assessee on 26.12.2023. For the purpose of limitation under Section 107, this communication date is crucial, as the appeal period runs from the date on which the order is served/communicated.

Filing of the Appeal

Sunrise Crop Science preferred an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (respondent No.2) under Section 107 of the Act, with the following particulars:

  • Appeal No.: GST-413/2024-25
  • ARN No.: AD290724007385X
  • Date of filing: 09.07.2024

Counting from the original order date 16.12.2023, the appeal was filed after 206 days. More significantly, when reckoned from the communication date 26.12.2023, the appeal overshot not only the normal limitation period but also the statutorily condonable extension.

Basic Appeal Period – Section 107(1)

Section 107(1) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 gives an assessee:

  • A period of three months from the date of communication of the order to file an appeal before the prescribed Appellate Authority.

In this case, counting three months from 26.12.2023, the normal limitation would expire around the end of March 2024.

Power to Condoned Delay – Section 107(4)

Section 107(4) provides a limited power to the Appellate Authority to condone delay:

  • The Appellate Authority may, if it is satisfied with the reasons for delay, allow the appeal to be filed within a further period of one month beyond the initial three months.

Thus, the statutory design is clear:

  • Normal period: 3 months from communication
  • Extended period: Additional 1 month, subject to sufficient cause
  • Delay beyond this combined window (3 + 1 months) ordinarily leaves the Appellate Authority with no power to entertain the appeal, as the statute does not permit condonation beyond one extra month.

Extent of Delay in Sunrise Crop Science’s Case

From the date of communication (26.12.2023):

  • The appeal had to be filed within 3 months under Section 107(1), extendable by another month under Section 107(4).
  • Beyond this total period of 4 months, the Appellate Authority lacks statutory power to continue to condone delay.

The High Court noted that the appeal filed on 09.07.2024 was 84 days beyond the aggregate period stipulated in Section 107(1) and Section 107(4).