The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that while GST appellate authorities are bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act and cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed period, constitutional courts can exercise their writ jurisdiction to prevent injustice in exceptional cases.
The bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar condoned a delay of 746 days in filing a GST appeal after finding that the delay resulted from circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control and directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.
The dispute arose after the GST registration of the Petitioner/assessee was cancelled through an Order-in-Original. The company subsequently filed an appeal on April 1, 2026, challenging the cancellation of its registration. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on May 5, 2026, holding that it lacked statutory power to condone such an extraordinary delay beyond the period permitted under Section 107 of the GST law. Aggrieved by the rejection, the company approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition.
Buy Now: 130 GST Judgments – E-Magazine July 2026
Vikram Gogra, on behalf of the petitioner contended that the delay was neither deliberate nor negligent. It submitted that between 2021 and 2025, three Executive Directors of the listed company had passed away, causing severe disruption in its management and decision-making process. According to the company, considerable time was spent in reconstituting its management and appointing new directors, which prevented it from taking timely legal action against the GST registration cancellation.
The company further argued that immediately after the newly constituted management became aware of the GST proceedings, it sought legal advice and filed the appeal without further delay. It maintained that the delay was bona fide and arose solely due to exceptional circumstances beyond its control.
The petitioner relied upon several earlier Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, including M/s Molana Construction Company, Man Singh Tanwar, and RPC PSIPL JV, wherein the Court had exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction to permit delayed GST appeals to be heard on merits where sufficient cause had been demonstrated.
The State opposed the writ petition, arguing that the appellate authority had rightly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation and that the assessment order had attained finality.
The court observed that although the appellate authority is strictly bound by the limitation provisions contained in Section 107 of the RGST Act, the High Court, while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution, is not similarly constrained where exceptional facts justify judicial intervention.
The Bench noted that the reasons cited by the petitioner clearly demonstrated circumstances beyond its control and held that refusing adjudication of the appeal on merits would result in grave prejudice and denial of an effective remedy. The Court also observed that similar relief had consistently been granted in earlier decisions involving delayed GST appeals.
Referring to its earlier decision in M/s M R Traders v. Union of India, the High Court emphasized that the CGST Act is not merely a revenue collection statute but a comprehensive fiscal reform designed to facilitate trade, commerce and business continuity.
The Court observed that cancellation of GST registration can have devastating consequences on a business by depriving it of the ability to carry on commercial activities. It held that statutory remedies should not become illusory due to hyper-technical interpretations, particularly where a taxpayer is willing to regularize compliance by filing returns, paying taxes, interest and penalties, and rectifying defaults. The Bench further observed that permanently excluding such taxpayers from the GST framework could impose disproportionate hardship affecting their right to livelihood under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Following its consistent line of precedents, the High Court condoned the 746-day delay, after accounting for the statutory relaxation of 120 days available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It set aside the appellate order dated May 5, 2026, and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide the company’s appeal on merits, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date the High Court’s order is uploaded on its website.
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.
Read More: Exporters Can Insist on FTP Stakeholder Consultation Before Export Policy Changes: Bombay High Court
