The Rajasthan High Court has directed the GST Appellate Authority to entertain and decide an appeal on merits after condoning the delay in its filing, holding that denial of adjudication on merits, in circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control, could cause grave injury and prejudice.
The Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar has observed that although the Appellate Authority was bound by Section 107, the circumstances in the present case warranted interference because refusing to adjudicate the appeal on merits could result in “grave injury and prejudice” to the petitioner.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
The dispute arose from a GST demand of Rs. 1,07,97,696 for Financial Year 2024-25, which was raised by the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Sawai Madhopur, on the allegation that the petitioner had claimed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) in GSTR-3B as compared with the credit reflected in GSTR-2A. The demand was created through an Order-in-Original dated May 13, 2025.
The taxpayer subsequently filed an appeal against the adjudication order on September 17, 2025. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by order dated July 8, 2026, holding that the appeal was barred by limitation and that the authority lacked the power to condone the delay.
Aggrieved by the dismissal, the taxpayer approached the Rajasthan High Court by filing the writ petition seeking intervention so that its statutory appeal could be considered on merits.
Vaibhav Gogara, the Counsel for the taxpayer argued that the delay was bona fide and unintentional. The central submission was that the adjudication order had not been duly communicated to the taxpayer in a manner that brought it to the concerned person’s attention.
According to the petitioner, the order had merely been uploaded under the “Additional Notice and Orders” tab of the GST portal, which, it contended, was not ordinarily monitored for service of adjudication orders. The taxpayer further submitted that the email communication containing the order had been diverted to the spam folder, resulting in the communication not reaching the concerned person’s inbox. No physical copy of the order was served either.
The petitioner stated that it became aware of the order only after recovery proceedings were initiated on August 14, 2025 and September 9, 2025. It submitted that immediately after gaining knowledge of the order, it took steps to obtain the relevant records and pursued the appellate remedy without further delay.
The taxpayer relied upon several earlier Division Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, including M/s M R Traders v. UOI, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors., Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., and two decisions in RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
On the strength of these precedents, the petitioner argued that sufficient cause had been demonstrated for the delay and that the circumstances preventing timely filing were beyond its control. It therefore sought a direction permitting the appeal to be heard on merits after condonation of the delay.
The Revenue authorities opposed the plea, maintaining that the impugned order had been correctly passed and that the appeal had become barred by limitation.
The Division Bench acknowledged that the Appellate Authority is ordinarily bound by the statutory limitation provisions contained in Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017.
However, the Court drew a distinction between the statutory limitation applicable to the appellate authority and the High Court’s power to intervene in an appropriate writ proceeding where the facts demonstrate circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control.
The Bench noted that in the earlier judgments cited by the petitioner, the Rajasthan High Court had similarly exercised its writ jurisdiction and issued directions enabling delayed appeals to be considered on merits.
Following what it described as the consistent view already taken by the Court, the Bench allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Importantly, the operative portion of the judgment records that the Court condoned a 14-day delay, after granting the relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act, thereby permitting the statutory appeal to proceed.
The High Court consequently directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the taxpayer’s appeal and adjudicate it on merits.
The Court stipulated that the appeal must be filed within 30 days from the date on which the High Court’s order is uploaded on its website.
The Court also disposed of the stay petition and all pending applications.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
