The Rajasthan High Court has once again emphasized that genuine and unavoidable circumstances preventing taxpayers from filing GST appeals within the prescribed limitation period should not deprive them of a hearing on merits. 

The Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar directed the GST Appellate Authority to entertain a delayed appeal after finding that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the taxpayer’s control and that denying an opportunity to challenge the assessment would result in grave prejudice. 

The case arose from a GST demand of ₹79.85 lakh raised by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Sikar, against a mining concern for the financial years 2018-19 and 2023-24. The demand was based on the alleged non-payment of tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) on royalty, District Mineral Exploration Trust (DMET), and Rajasthan Mineral Exploration Trust/National Mineral Exploration Trust (RMSET/NMET) expenses. 

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

The taxpayer sought to challenge the adjudication order dated 28 November 2025. However, by the time an appeal was attempted, the GST portal reflected that the appeal had become time-barred, effectively preventing its electronic filing. Left without an alternative statutory remedy, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition. 

Before the High Court, the petitioner explained that the delay was not deliberate but resulted from a combination of exceptional circumstances. It was argued that the proprietor lacked familiarity with the GST portal, appellate procedures, and the technical requirements under GST law. According to the petitioner, the adjudication order had merely been uploaded on the GST portal and was not otherwise brought to his notice, leaving him unaware of the proceedings. 

The petitioner further submitted that the business had ceased operations in 2024, had no turnover thereafter, and had been completely shut down. Due to limited education and inadequate knowledge of GST compliance, the proprietor relied entirely upon his Chartered Accountant and accountant for tax matters. It was also stated that the business closure caused severe financial hardship, depression, and ill health, requiring medical treatment, which further contributed to the delay in pursuing appellate remedies. 

The tax authorities opposed the writ petition, arguing that the appeal was clearly barred by limitation under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and that the adjudication order had been validly passed. According to the respondents, the statutory limitation provisions could not be ignored merely because the appeal had not been filed within the prescribed period. 

The Bench observed that while the Appellate Authority remains bound by the limitation provisions contained in Section 107 of the GST law, the peculiar facts of the present case warranted judicial intervention.

The Court noted that the reasons advanced by the petitioner demonstrated that the delay had occurred due to circumstances beyond his control. It observed that refusing to examine the appeal on merits in such circumstances would cause serious prejudice and grave injury to the taxpayer. 

The Bench also relied upon its earlier Division Bench decisions, including M/s M R Traders v. Union of India, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department, and the RPC PSIPL JV decisions, where similar relief had been granted by directing authorities to entertain delayed GST appeals in deserving cases. 

Following its consistent judicial approach, the High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.

The Court directed the GST Appellate Authority to entertain and decide the appeal on merits, subject to the petitioner filing the appeal within 30 days from the date of uploading of the High Court’s order. 

The petitioner had also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which restricts the power of the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond the prescribed period. However, in view of the relief granted by the High Court, counsel for the petitioner chose not to press that challenge in the present proceedings.

The Bench clarified that the issue relating to the validity of Section 107(4) remains open and may be raised in an appropriate case in the future.

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: No Coercive GST Recovery Against Former Partner Till Appeal is Decided: Himachal Pradesh High Court