Eagle Trans Shipping And Logistics India Private Limited Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The petitioner submitted that although an alternate statutory remedy was available to challenge the orders dated 18.11.2024 relating to the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023, it could not avail the appellate remedy because those orders were not uploaded on the GST Portal under the case ID specifically assigned to the petitioner. The petitioner stated that while filing an appeal against an order dated 31.08.2024 relating to the year 2019-2020, it came to know that final orders had also been passed in the proceedings for the subsequent assessment years.
The petitioner submitted that it had participated in the proceedings before the authority and had filed its reply. However, it could not obtain information regarding the final orders dated 18.11.2024 in time because the orders were not available on the portal corresponding to the assigned case IDs. It was acknowledged that the orders had been uploaded on the Common Portal and that an email regarding the orders had been sent to Abhaya Kumar Samal, who handled the company’s GST compliance. According to the petitioner, the concerned employee inadvertently overlooked the email. The petitioner further submitted that the email merely informed that an order had been passed and directed the recipient to access the details through the dashboard, but even upon accessing the dashboard, the details of the order dated 18.11.2024 were not reflected. The petitioner also referred to the portal as opened on 24.09.2025.
The GST authorities contended that service of the orders was duly effected in accordance with Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, as the orders were uploaded on the Government portal and also communicated through email. It was argued that the petitioner had knowledge of the orders and that, in view of the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the Act, the period for filing appeals had expired and could not be extended by the Court. The respondents relied upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench in Akshansh Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur-III, which had relied upon Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.
The High Court considered the statutory limitation under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, which permits the Appellate Authority to condone delay only for a further period of one month beyond the prescribed limitation. The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) Vs. State of Punjab and Others, wherein it was held that although the statutory appellate authority may lack power to extend limitation beyond the prescribed period, the High Court’s powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not curtailed and may be exercised to condone delay in appropriate cases depending on the facts and circumstances. The Court observed that the decision in Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. had not noticed the judgment in Tecnimont Private Limited.
The Court held that no person should be left without a remedy merely because the statutory appeal had become time-barred. It observed that its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is sufficiently wide and is not fettered by statutory provisions where the interests of justice require intervention. On the facts of the present case, the Court found that the petitioner could not be said to have acquired full knowledge of the impugned orders because the email itself did not contain the detailed orders and the relevant portal did not display the detailed orders. The Court also noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal for the assessment year 2019-2020, indicating that it would likewise have filed appeals for the subsequent years had it been aware of the orders.
Accordingly, the High Court was satisfied that sufficient grounds existed to condone the delay. It permitted the petitioner to file appeals relating to the assessment years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 within fifteen days. The Appellate Authority was directed to examine the appeals on merits and decide them expeditiously, preferably within three months, by passing a speaking order after granting an opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Court also clarified that the required pre-deposit must be made. The writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) Vs. State of Punjab and Others (Supreme Court), (2021) 12 SCC 477
- Akshansh Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur-III (Rajasthan High Court), D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2957/2024, decided on 01.04.2025, reported in (2025) 30 Centax 113 (Raj.)
- Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. (Supreme Court), 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.)
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner submits before us that while an alternate remedy exists to assail the orders dated 18.11.2024 passed with respect to the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the petitioner could not avail the remedy of appeal as the said orders were not uploaded on the GST Portal specially assigned with the case ID of the petitioner.
2. He submits that when he filed the appeal relating to one of the orders passed on 31.08.2024 in respect to the year 20192020, it was learnt that final orders have also been passed with respect to SCA relating to 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023.
3. He submits that during the proceedings under the SCA, he had appeared before the Authority and had also submitted a reply but the information related to passing of final order dated 18.11.2024 could not be assessed in time, as the same was not placed on the specifically assigned portal with their respective case ID. However, it was learnt that the order dated 18.11.2024 was uploaded on the Common Portal and also that the information regarding passing of order dated 18.11.2024 was sent to the e-mail of Abhaya Kumar Samal who is responsible for taking care of the GST compliance of the company. The concerned employee inadvertently missed the said e-mail.
4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that a look at the e-mail would reflect that the e-mail conveys of the Authorities having passed an order on 18.11.2024 and the details were to be accessed from the dashboard. However, on clicking on the concerned dashboard, services as directed therein even as of today, it does not reflect of the details of the order dated 18.11.2024.
5. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the portal relating to the case ID as opened on 24.09.2025.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the GST has submitted that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’), the Authorities not only placed the order on the Government portal but also sent the order on the relevant e-mail and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge of the passing of the order and in view of the Provisions of Section 107 of the Act of 2017, the limitation provided therein stands expired and, therefore, the same ought not be condoned by this Court.
7. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Akshansh Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Jaipur-III” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2957/2024, decided on 01.04.2025), reported in (2025) 30 Centax 113 (Raj.),which has relied upon the judgment passed in the case of “Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU Vs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.”, 2020 (36) G.S.T.L. 305 (S.C.).
8. We have carefully considered the said judgment and have also considered the facts of the present case.
9. Section 107 of the Act 2017 provides limitation under Clause 4 which reads as under:-
“(4): The Appellate Authority may, if he is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of three months or six months, as the case may be, allow it to be presented within a further period of one month.”
10. In view of the above, it is apparent that the maximum condonation after three months is one month so far as the powers of the Tribunal are concerned. However, in a subsequent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, (2021) 12 SCC 477, the Supreme Court held that while the concerned Tribunal may not have the powers to extend the period of limitations, the powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be curtailed so as to condone the delay in appropriate cases considering the facts and circumstances therein.
11. In “Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.” (supra), the judgment passed in “Tecnimont Private Limited” (supra) has not been noticed.
12. It is settled law that no person can be left remediless if the appeal is barred by limitation. This Court would have to examine the case on merits. However, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough and cannot be fettered by the provisions of law. If in a particular case, we find that in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned, also considering the facts that the knowledge of the order cannot be said to have been gained especially when the e-mail itself dost not reflect the detailed order and the portal does not contain the detailed order, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the order passed by the respondents.
13. We also noticed that when an appeal has been preferred against the order passed relating to the years 2019-2020, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have not availed the remedy of an appeal in relation to the subsequent years had there been knowledge of the passing order. We, therefore, are satisfied that the delay can be condoned in respect to the facts of the present case and allow the petitioner to file the appeal relating to the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of 15 days henceforth, the Appellate Authority shall examine the same on merits and decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereto.
14. It goes without saying that the appeal shall be decided by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
15. Pre-deposit has to be of course made for the purpose.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
17. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.
