The Allahabad High Court has categorically held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to appeals filed under Section 107 of the GST Act, rejecting the contrary view taken by the Calcutta High Court in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons vs. Union of India. Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, in Writ Tax No. 626 of 2026 (M/s Peaktel It Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., decided 21.04.2026), dismissed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal filed 66 days beyond the condonable period.
The petitioner had challenged the cancellation of its GST registration. Its appeal under Section 107 was rejected as beyond limitation. Before the High Court, the petitioner relied on the Calcutta HC's judgment in S.K. Chakraborty & Sons to argue that Section 5 of the Limitation Act would be attracted since Section 107 does not expressly exclude it. The Court refused to follow this view, holding that the Calcutta HC judgment fails to adequately consider the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2008) 3 SCC 70 and Commissioner of Customs vs. Hongo India (2009) 5 SCC 791, and is therefore of no precedential value.
The Court held that the CGST Act is a special statute and a self-contained code. Section 107 has an inbuilt mechanism providing for a three-month limitation period plus a one-month condonable period, and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act. In the absence of any clause condoning delay after the prescribed period, there is complete exclusion of Section 5. The Court also relied on the Kerala HC's ruling in Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. and its own earlier decisions in M/s Abhishek Trading Corporation and Garg Enterprises to the same effect. This ruling deepens the inter-HC divergence on this critical limitation question.
• 2026-juristway.com-1061-HC(Allahabad)-GST | High Court of Allahabad | Writ Tax No. 626 of 2026 | 21.04.2026