Saini Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petition of Saini Construction Company and condoned a delay of 244 days, after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act, in pursuing an appeal against cancellation of its GST registration. The petitioner’s registration had been cancelled by Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2023. An appeal filed on 29.01.2024 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 05.02.2024 as time-barred on the ground that the authority had no power to condone the delay, following which the writ petition was filed on 10.05.2024. The petitioner explained that the delay was bona fide and unintentional. His mother had passed away, resulting in family disputes concerning her estate and assets which occupied his attention. The petitioner also suffered from a hernia and underwent surgery in 2023, preventing him from attending to his legal and business affairs. It was further submitted that the delay had occurred due to non-communication of the order.
The High Court observed that although the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the circumstances preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal within time were beyond his control and refusal to adjudicate the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. Following the consistent view adopted in earlier Division Bench decisions including M/s M R Traders v. UOI, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. and the other cited cases, the Court condoned the delay. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and adjudicate the appeal on merits, provided it is filed within 30 days from uploading of the High Court’s order on its website. The High Court did not adjudicate the underlying cancellation dispute on merits.
Cases Discussed
- M/s M R Traders v. UOI (Rajasthan High Court); 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. CWP 11794/2025.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. CWP 7260/2025.
- Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. CWP 14658/2024.
- M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors (Rajasthan High Court); 22024 SCC OnLine Raj.
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 Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-2), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-Shahpura, Jaipur-I, Ward-I, whereby GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled. The appeal against the said order was filed on 29.01.2024. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.02.2024 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 10.05.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. He contends that the petitioner’s mother passed away, which gave rise to disputes within the family regarding her estate and assets. Consequently, the petitioner remained preoccupied with the said family issues and was unable to pursue the matter within the prescribed period. 2.1Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner also suffered from a hernia and underwent surgery in the year 2023, owing to which he was unable to attend to his legal and business affairs. On these grounds, it is argued that the delay in filing the appeal has occurred due to non-communication of the order and, therefore, deserves to be condoned.
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 judgements of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI 1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors 2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. 3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 4 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 5 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 judgements 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 of 244 days (after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
10. Stay petition and all pending application also stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ
2 115 22024 SCC OnLine Raj
3 938 3D.B. CWP 14658/2024
4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025
5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
