Case Law Details
Rameshwari Narpatram Bishnoi Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Rajasthan High Court Condoned 301-Day Delay Because GST Cancellation Affected Livelihood; Rajasthan High Court Restores GST Appeal Because Constitutional Courts Can Override Limitation Hardship; GST Registration Cancellation Challenge Revived Because Delay Was Beyond Petitioner’s Control; Delay in Filing GST Appeal Conditionally Excused Due to Business and Livelihood Impact; Rajasthan High Court Sets Aside Time-Bar Rejection Because Merits of GST Appeal Were Never Examined.
In Rameshwari Narpatram Bishnoi Vs Union of India, the Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition seeking condonation of delay of 301 days in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 31 December 2024 cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively from 22 July 2022. The appeal filed on 25 February 2026 had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority on limitation grounds, holding that it lacked power to condone the delay beyond the statutory period under Section 107 of the RGST Act.
The petitioner contended that the delay occurred due to reliance on a tax consultant handling GST compliances and lack of proper communication regarding cancellation proceedings, because of which the petitioner remained unaware of the cancellation. It was submitted that immediate steps were taken after gaining knowledge of the order and that the delay was neither wilful nor intentional.
The High Court referred to earlier Division Bench judgments including Molana Construction Company, Man Singh Tanwar and RPC PSIPL, where similar delays had been condoned by the Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court also relied on the judgment in M/s M R Traders v. UOI, which held that although the Appellate Authority has no unrestricted power to condone delay beyond Section 107(4), constitutional courts may intervene to prevent denial of remedy and hardship affecting business continuity and livelihood.
The Court observed that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner, particularly since cancellation of GST registration affects livelihood and business operations. Following the consistent judicial view, the Court condoned the delay of 301 days after granting the statutory relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 27 March 2026 was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the appeal on merits. The stay petition and pending applications were also disposed of.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.3 to condone the delay of 301 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Sanchore, Ward-II, Headquarter Bhinmal, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration issued against the petitioner with retrospective effect from 22.07.2022. The appeal against the said order was filed on 25.02.2026. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure-9) dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable and bona fide circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner had relied upon the tax consultant entrusted with handling GST compliances and related proceedings, and owing to lack of proper communication regarding the cancellation proceedings, the Petitioner remained unaware that the registration had already been cancelled. It is further submitted that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the same, the petitioner took prompt steps to prefer the appeal. The delay is neither wilful, deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control.
2.1 Owing to these circumstances, learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. The delay is neither wilful, deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay in filing the appeal be kindly condoned in the interest of 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 Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors1, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.2 , RPC PSIPL ]V Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors3 and RPC PSIPL ]V Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors4, 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 counsel for the respondents opposes the above submission and contends that the assessment order has rightly been passed, 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 Act, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not file 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 in para 4 of preceding part of instant order, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8. In the context of present case, where cancellation of GST registration results in loss of livelihood, reference may also be had to another judgment of this Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI5. For ready reference, relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“11.5. The distinction, therefore, is not one of sympathy or sufficiency of cause, but of jurisdictional competence. While constitutional courts, exercising plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may in appropriate cases condone delay so as to prevent a complete denial of remedy, such constitutional elasticity cannot be transposed into the statutory framework governing the Appellate Authority.
11.6. Thus, we are of the opinion that the statutory scheme under Section 107 admits of no discretion with the appellate authority to grant extension beyond the expressly prescribed period. The application of the Limitation Act stands unequivocally excluded by necessary implication. Accordinly, we hold that the Appellate Authority does not possesses the unrestricted discretion under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the ceiling prescribed in Section 107(4).
12. It is also pertinent to note that the CGST Act is not a statute enacted solely for revenue collection. It represents a comprehensive fiscal reform intended to consolidate multiple indirect taxes and, at the same time, to facilitate trade, commerce, and business continuity. This legislative intent is clearly discernible from the scheme of the Act, particularly the provisions relating to revocation of cancellation of registration under Section 30 and appellate remedies under Section 107.The emphasis of the statute is thus not merely punitive compliance, but regulated facilitation of economic activity. Any interpretation which renders statutory remedies illusory on hyper-technical grounds would defeat the very purpose of the enactment.
13. Cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines should not permanently debar a taxpayer from the GST framework, especially where the taxpayer intends to comply by filing returns, paying taxes, interest, and penalties, and rectifying defaults. In such cases, denial of opportunity to an assessee undermines the inclusive and facilitative objective of the GST regime. Non-restoration of GST registration in such cases also directly impairs the assessee’s ability to conduct business, earn a livelihood and leads economic paralysis, thus, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by imposing disproportionate and unreasonable hardship.”
9. 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 of 301 days (after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 27.03.2026 is set aside. Delay of 301 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. The Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
11.Stay petition and all pending application stands disposed of.
Notes:
1 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
2 D.B. CWP 14658/2024
3 D.B. CWP 7260/2025
4 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
5 2025 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
Author Bio
