Author: Ashwarya Sharma, Advocate, Co-Founder & Legal Head, RB LawCorp
Published on: 14/07/2026
Introduction: When Limitation Becomes the Largest Question Before GSTAT
“The law of limitation is a law of peace, justice and repose.”
Few principles in procedural law have enjoyed such enduring acceptance. Limitation statutes exist not merely to regulate litigation but to preserve certainty, finality, and legal stability. Every legal system must eventually draw a line beyond which disputes cannot endlessly be revived.
Ironically, however, one of the most significant issues confronting the newly constituted Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT) concerns limitation itself.
In Pattinam Chettiar Kalamkandavengai v. DSTO I, Thuraiyur Assessment Circle, D. Gunasekaran [2026-VIL-35-GSTAT-DEL-PB], the Principal Bench of the GSTAT was confronted with a question affecting hundreds of taxpayers across India:
Can the GSTAT condone delays in filing appeals beyond the statutory outer limit prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017?
Rather than immediately deciding the issue, the Principal Bench adopted a measured institutional approach. Observing that 504 appeals pending before various State Benches raised an identical legal question, the Tribunal directed consolidation of those matters before the Principal Bench and listed them for hearing.
Although the order does not answer the substantive legal issue, it may well become one of the defining procedural orders in the early jurisprudence of the GSTAT. More importantly, it raises difficult questions about the relationship between statutory limitation, judicial discretion, access to justice, and the limits of appellate jurisdiction under the GST framework.
The Statutory Framework: Where the Difficulty Begins
The appellate structure under the CGST Act is carefully calibrated.
Section 107(1) grants every aggrieved taxpayer three months to challenge an adjudication order before the First Appellate Authority.
Recognising that genuine hardships may occasionally prevent timely filing, Section 107(4) empowers the Appellate Authority to condone delay. However, this power is not unlimited. The statute expressly restricts condonation to one additional month, provided sufficient cause is established.
Once this additional period expires, the Appellate Authority becomes functus officio in relation to condonation. It simply lacks statutory jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
The next appellate stage lies before the GST Appellate Tribunal under Section 112. Similar to Section 107, the Tribunal receives power to condone delay for a specified additional period.
The controversy arises when a taxpayer never succeeds in filing a valid appeal before the First Appellate Authority because the delay exceeded the statutory ceiling under Section 107(4).
The central question therefore becomes:
Can the GSTAT, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, overlook or cure a delay which the Appellate Authority itself had no statutory power to condone?
This seemingly procedural issue now affects 504 pending appeals, making it perhaps the first truly pan-India legal question before the GSTAT.
Finality Versus Fairness: Two Competing Principles
Every limitation dispute reflects a tension between two equally important legal values.
On one side stands the principle of finality.
The Supreme Court has consistently recognised that limitation provisions represent legislative policy. They are not mere technical rules but substantive prescriptions intended to ensure certainty, prevent stale claims, and protect the administration of justice from perpetual litigation.
Viewed from this perspective, Section 107(4) represents a conscious legislative choice. Parliament has deliberately fixed the outer boundary within which appellate remedies may be exercised.
On the other side lies the principle of substantial justice.
The Limitation Act, 1963, particularly Sections 5 and 29(2), has historically enabled courts and tribunals to condone delays where sufficient cause exists, unless such application is expressly or impliedly excluded by the special statute.
Whether the CGST Act excludes the operation of the Limitation Act remains one of the most debated questions in GST litigation.
Some High Courts have taken the view that the Limitation Act continues to apply, while others have held that the self-contained limitation mechanism under the CGST Act excludes any broader equitable jurisdiction.
The issue has therefore remained unsettled at the national level.
Conflicting High Court Views
The judicial landscape itself reflects this uncertainty.
The Calcutta High Court, in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons v. Union of India and later in Kajal Dutta v. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, adopted a liberal interpretation, holding that the provisions of the Limitation Act could apply to proceedings under the CGST Act for condonation of delay.
However, a contrary view emerged from the Allahabad High Court in Abhishek Trading Corporation v. Commissioner (Appeals) and from the Madras High Court in Ramanujan Venkatesan v. Joint Commissioner (Appeals-II).
These courts held that the CGST Act constitutes a special statute containing its own complete limitation code, thereby impliedly excluding the operation of the Limitation Act.
Adding another layer of complexity, the Supreme Court has stayed the judgment in S.K. Chakraborty, leaving the controversy unresolved.
The GSTAT will therefore have to decide the issue against the backdrop of conflicting judicial authority.
The Supreme Court’s Decision in Singh Enterprises
Perhaps the greatest challenge before the Principal Bench is the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jamshedpur [2007-VIL-02-SC-CE].
Although rendered under the Central Excise Act, the statutory language closely resembles the limitation provisions contained in the CGST Act.
The Supreme Court held that where the legislature itself prescribes a specific condonable period, the appellate authority cannot extend that period by invoking Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
The Court observed that statutory authorities derive their jurisdiction solely from the legislation creating them. They cannot exercise powers beyond those expressly conferred by statute.
The existence of an internal condonation mechanism itself was treated as evidence that Parliament intended to exclude the general law contained in the Limitation Act.
This reasoning presents a formidable obstacle for taxpayers seeking wider condonation before the GSTAT.
Unless the Tribunal is able to distinguish Singh Enterprises on statutory or constitutional grounds, it may find itself bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation.
A Consistent Line of Tribunal Decisions
The principle laid down in Singh Enterprises has subsequently been followed across multiple benches of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
In FIL Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Delhi Bench reiterated that statutory authorities cannot enlarge limitation beyond the period expressly permitted by legislation.
The same approach was reaffirmed in Diamond Construction v. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, where the Tribunal again held that the prescribed limitation ceiling cannot be relaxed on equitable considerations.
More recently, similar conclusions were reached in Parekh Cranes and Machinery v. Commissioner of Customs (Import) and Tayal Construction Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST.
Collectively, these decisions span nearly two decades and consistently reinforce the proposition that statutory appellate bodies possess no inherent power to condone delays beyond the limits fixed by Parliament.
This long and consistent body of precedent presents a substantial persuasive challenge before the GSTAT.
Why the GSTAT Faces a Different Context
Despite the strength of the existing precedents, the GSTAT operates within a unique statutory environment.
Unlike the earlier indirect tax tribunals, the GST Appellate Tribunal itself remained non-functional for several years after the enactment of the GST regime.
During this period, Parliament enacted special transitional provisions to preserve appellate rights and prevent taxpayers from suffering due to the absence of the Tribunal.
It may therefore be argued that the GST framework presents a materially different legislative context from the Central Excise Act considered in Singh Enterprises.
Taxpayers may contend that the extraordinary delay in constituting the Tribunal, coupled with Parliament’s own remedial interventions, reflects a broader legislative intention to preserve access to appellate remedies.
Whether these distinguishing features are sufficient to depart from Singh Enterprises remains one of the most significant questions before the Tribunal.
The Importance of Consolidating 504 Appeals
Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of the Principal Bench’s order is not the legal issue itself, but the procedural approach adopted to resolve it.
Instead of permitting different State Benches to independently interpret the law, the Principal Bench directed consolidation of all matters involving the identical question.
This approach reflects the institutional role assigned to the Principal Bench under the GST framework.
The third proviso to Section 109(5) of the CGST Act, read with Notification No. S.O. 4219(E) dated 17 September 2025, specifically contemplates that where identical questions of law arise before multiple State Benches, the matters may be heard by the Principal Bench.
Such consolidation serves an important constitutional purpose.
Uniform tax laws require uniform judicial interpretation. Allowing multiple benches to decide the same legal issue independently could produce conflicting precedents, uncertainty for taxpayers, and inconsistent administration across States.
By consolidating all 504 appeals, the Principal Bench has sought to ensure that a single authoritative ruling governs every similarly situated taxpayer.
A Defining Moment for GSTAT Jurisprudence
The eventual ruling in these consolidated appeals will likely become one of the earliest landmark decisions of the GST Appellate Tribunal.
The issue extends well beyond limitation.
It concerns the very nature of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, its relationship with Supreme Court precedent, the balance between legislative finality and equitable justice, and the role of the Principal Bench in maintaining nationwide consistency.
Whichever view ultimately prevails is almost certain to reach the Supreme Court.
Until then, taxpayers, practitioners, and adjudicating authorities across the country will closely watch how the GSTAT approaches this foundational procedural issue.
Conclusion
The order passed in Pattinam Chettiar Kalamkandavengai does not answer the limitation question.
Instead, it demonstrates something equally significant.
By consolidating 504 appeals involving an identical legal issue, the Principal Bench has recognised that consistency in tax adjudication is as important as correctness itself.
Whether the Tribunal ultimately follows the strict statutory approach reflected in Singh Enterprises, or identifies distinguishing features within the GST framework, its ruling will shape the procedural contours of GST litigation for years to come.
For now, the law of limitation itself stands before the Tribunal seeking its own definitive answer.
The 504 appeals may belong to different taxpayers across different States, but the legal question is one.
The Principal Bench has rightly ensured that the answer, when it comes, will be one as well.
📎 Attached Article for Detailed Reading
📎 Full Published Version: https://vilgst.com/showiframe?V1Zaa1VsQlJQVDA9=TVRrek5BPT0=&page=articles
(The author is a practicing advocate, Co-Founder and Legal Head of RB LawCorp.
He specializes in GST law. Suggestions or queries can be directed to
ashsharma@rblawcorp.in. The views expressed in this article are strictly
personal.)
