Infinite Ev Solutions Vs Deputy Commissioner (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition filed by M/s Infinite Ev Solutions seeking condonation of a 167-day delay in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2023, whereby its GST registration had been cancelled. The statutory appeal was filed on 10.11.2023, but the Appellate Authority, by order dated 30.01.2024, dismissed it on limitation, holding that it lacked power to condone the delay.
The petitioner explained that it had initially decided to discontinue its business and therefore did not pursue an appeal within the prescribed period. Subsequently, during a special GST drive, the firm was declared fraudulent and notices were issued to its purchasers seeking reversal of Input Tax Credit along with interest. According to the petitioner, these developments adversely affected its business reputation and future livelihood and compelled it to challenge the cancellation order to clear its name and protect its commercial interests. The petitioner maintained that the delay was neither wilful, deliberate nor intentional and had occurred because of circumstances beyond its control.
The petitioner relied upon Division Bench decisions of the Rajasthan High Court in M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., and two decisions in RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. It was argued that sufficient cause had been shown and that the appeal should be considered on merits after condonation of the delay. The respondents opposed the plea and contended that the appeal was barred by limitation.
The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST Act. However, it found that the circumstances preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal were beyond its control and that refusing adjudication on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. The Court noted that the Rajasthan High Court judgments cited by the petitioner had similarly directed delayed appeals to be entertained on merits.
The Court additionally referred to its judgment in M/s M R Traders v. UOI. The reproduced passage distinguished the statutory authority’s limited power under Section 107 from the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226. It stated that the statutory scheme under Section 107 does not confer unrestricted discretion upon the Appellate Authority to extend the prescribed period, while constitutional courts may, in appropriate cases, condone delay to prevent complete denial of a remedy. The passage also emphasised the GST regime’s objective of facilitating trade, commerce and business continuity and observed that cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines should not permanently exclude a taxpayer from the GST framework where circumstances justify relief.
Following the consistent view taken in the cited cases, the High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the 167-day delay, after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The appellate order dated 30.01.2024 was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and adjudicate it on merits. The stay petition and all pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors — 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938.
- Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. — D.B. CWP 14658/2024
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. — D.B. CWP 7260/2025.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. — D.B. CWP 11794/2025.
- M/s M R Traders v. UOI — 2025 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115.
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 167 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2023 (Annexure-6), passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Neem Ka Thana, Jaipur IV, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration issued against the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 10.11.2023. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.01.2024 (Annexure-1) 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. He contends that the petitioner had initially decided to discontinue its business and, therefore, did not prefer an appeal against the impugned order within the prescribed period. However, during a subsequent special GST drive, the petitioner’s firm was declared fraudulent, as a consequence of which notices were issued to its purchasers seeking reversal of Input Tax Credit (ITC) along with interest. He also contends that these subsequent developments seriously affected the petitioner’s business reputation and future livelihood, compelling the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority to challenge the impugned order, clear its name, and protect its commercial interests. 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 willful, deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the petitioner’s control.
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 JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors3 and RPC PSIPL JV 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 hypertechnical 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 167 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 30.01.2024 is set aside. Delay of 167 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
