Rajasthan HC Condones GST Appeal Delay Citing Genuine Hardship

Ramdev Builders Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)

The Rajasthan High Court (Jodhpur Bench) has directed the Appellate Authority to entertain a delayed GST appeal on merits, holding that the petitioner demonstrated sufficient cause beyond its control.

Key Takeaway:

The Court condoned the delay under Section 107 of the CGST Act after noting that “continuous losses within the immediate family” created genuine hardship, making it practically impossible to file within the statutory period. The Court observed that refusing condonation would cause grave injustice by allowing an ex-parte order to attain finality on mere technical grounds.
This judgment reinforces that writ courts may intervene when strict limitation bars lead to substantial injustice in exceptional circumstances.

#GST #RajasthanHighCourt #TaxLitigation #IndirectTax #LegalUpdate #TaxLaw #CGSTAct #WritJurisdiction#Delaycondone

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondents to entertain the appeal and also condone the delay and allow the filing of appeal against the impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 (Financial Years 2017-2018 and 2019-2020) as well as 12.03.2024 (Financial Year 2018-2019) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Jodhpur- II, whereby GST demand of Rs.11,30,614/- for Financial Year 2017-18, Rs.20,09,000/- for Financial Year 2018-2019 and Rs.30,26,908/- for Financial Year 2019-2020 was raised on the account of excess availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. Pursunt thereto an intimation gor attachment dated 25.11.2025 was also issued. The appeal against the said orders could not per force be filed before the Appellate Authority as the online status of the appeal would reveal that the same is time-barred. The petitioner is thus left remediless. Hence, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, has preferred this instant writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned by circumstances wholly beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner was prevented from availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed period due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, as the family suffered five successive bereavements between 2019 and January 2025, including the demise of the managing partner, his father, and three real brothers. These tragic events caused severe mental distress, emotional dislocation, and financial instability, thereby disrupting the normal functioning and decision-making capacity of the petitioner.

2.1. That the aforesaid sequence of continuous losses within the immediate family cannot be equated with an ordinary delay. The cumulative effect of prolonged grief, depression, familial obligations, and financial hardship rendered the petitioner incapable of pursuing legal remedies within time.

2.2. That the delay is neither intentional nor attributable to negligence, but arose from genuine hardship and incapacity, which made it practically impossible to seek legal assistance, arrange the  statutory pre-deposit, or initiate appellate proceedings. Refusal to condone the delay would result in grave injustice by allowing an ex-parte and non-speaking order to attain finality on mere technical grounds, defeating the cause of substantial justice.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI¹, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors², Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.³, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors⁴ and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors⁵ argues that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.

5. Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contends that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation.

6. Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond its control, non-adjudication of appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.

7. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.

8. In the premise, following the consistent view as already taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits.

10. Before parting, we may also hasten to add that as regards challenge to the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said challenge is not being pressed in the present matter, with liberty to raise and pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. The issue qua the vires of the same is thus left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in future.

11. Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

Notes:

¹2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115

²2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938

³ D.B. CWP 14658/2024

⁴D.B. CWP 7260/2025

⁵D.B. CWP 11794/2025