The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, has held that no time limit has been prescribed under sub-section (3) of Section 112 of the CGST Act for the Commissioner to review an order passed by the First Appellate Authority, and that the limitation period applies only to the filing of the appeal before the Tribunal. The ruling, by Member (Judicial) Satya Gopal Chattopadhyay and Member (Technical) Bijoy Kumar Kar in APL/39/KLK/2026 (Atanu Mondal v. Tekno Valves, decided 09.09.2026), rejected the respondent’s preliminary objection on maintainability and admitted the Revenue’s appeal for hearing on merits.
The appeal had been filed by the Revenue after the Commissioner passed a review order under Section 112(3) beyond six months from the date of communication of the First Appellate Authority’s order. The respondent raised a maintainability challenge contending that the Commissioner’s review was time-barred. The appellant’s representative argued that sub-section (3) of Section 112 prescribes a time limit only for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and not for the Commissioner’s exercise of the review power, and that the appeal had been filed within the extended period of limitation.
The Tribunal found merit in the Revenue’s submission. On a plain reading of Section 112(3), it concluded that the provision prescribes a time limit only for filing the appeal before the Tribunal and does not impose any separate deadline on the Commissioner for passing the review order. Since the appeal before the Tribunal had been filed within the extended period, the challenge on maintainability failed. The appeal was admitted and listed for hearing on merits. The interpretation of Section 112(3) is of significance to all practitioners as it clarifies the procedural framework governing second appeals before the newly operational GSTAT.
- 2026-juristway.com-1240-GSTAT(Kolkata)-GST | GSTAT Kolkata Bench | APL/39/KLK/2026 | 09.09.2026