Amolika Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition seeking condonation of a 101-day delay in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025, which raised a GST demand of Rs. 14,74,148/- for Financial Year 2020-2021 on account of alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit. The appeal was filed on 04.10.2025, but the Appellate Authority, by order dated 02.01.2026, dismissed it as time-barred on the ground that it lacked power to condone the delay. The writ petition was filed on 18.04.2026.
The Court noted that two separate adjudication orders had initially been passed for the same Financial Year 2020-2021. The first Order-in-Original dated 11.07.2024 raised a demand of Rs. 13,12,928/- based on an alleged discrepancy between outward supplies declared in GSTR-3B and supplies reflected in E-way bills. The subsequent Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 raised a separate demand of Rs. 14,74,148/- on the stated ground of excess availment of Input Tax Credit. Respondent No. 5 subsequently passed a suo motu rectification order dated 10.09.2025 withdrawing and setting aside the earlier order dated 11.07.2024, leaving the order dated 25.02.2025 as the operative adjudication order.
The petitioner submitted that the delay was bona fide and occurred because the show cause notice dated 22.11.2024 and the Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 had been uploaded on the GST portal under “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Notices and Orders” and had never been served manually or in hard copy. According to the petitioner, knowledge of the demand of Rs. 14,74,148/- was obtained only when the Department recovered the amount from the petitioner’s bank account. The petitioner also contended that the Order-in-Original had been passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and principles of natural justice because no personal hearing had been granted.
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the impugned appellate order had correctly been passed and that the appeal was barred by limitation. The Court, however, observed that although the Appellate Authority is bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the circumstances preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal within the stipulated period were beyond its control. The Court held that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits in such circumstances would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
In reaching this conclusion, the Court noted the Division Bench decisions in M R Traders Vs Union of India, M/s Molana Construction Company Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Department, Man Singh Tanwar Son of Shri Gordhan Singh Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department, and two decisions in RPC PSIPL JV Vs State of Rajasthan. The Court recorded that in those judgments it had issued directions for appeals to be entertained and decided on merits.
The Court also considered the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh And Others. In that decision, the Punjab and Haryana High Court had held, inter alia, that service of a show cause notice could not be deemed sufficient merely because it was uploaded on the common portal unless its receipt was acknowledged or a reply was filed. It further held that where an order-in-original was served only by uploading it on the common portal, the limitation period for an appeal would not be triggered, and where an appeal had been dismissed as time-barred in such circumstances, it could be restored and heard on merits. The Rajasthan High Court expressly recorded its respectful agreement with this view.
Taking a wholesome view of the circumstances, the Rajasthan High Court condoned the 101-day delay, after granting the relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act, in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed that the petitioner may file the appeal afresh within 30 days from the date on which the High Court’s order is uploaded on its website. Consequently, the appellate order dated 02.01.2026 was set aside and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and adjudicate it on merits without raising the issue of limitation. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M R Traders Vs Union of India, 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 — relied upon as a Division Bench judgment in which the Rajasthan High Court directed that a delayed GST appeal be entertained on merits.
- M/s Molana Construction Company Vs Central Goods And Service Tax Department, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 — relied upon as a Division Bench judgment supporting consideration of a delayed GST appeal on merits in writ jurisdiction.
- Man Singh Tanwar Vs Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., D.B. CWP 14658/2024 — relied upon as one of the Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court directing consideration of the appeal on merits.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. CWP 7260/2025 — cited among the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench judgments in which directions were issued for entertaining the appeal on merits.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. CWP 11794/2025 — cited among the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench judgments in which directions were issued for entertaining the appeal on merits.
- Luxmi Traders Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh And Others, (2026:PHHC099329:DB), CWP No. 27139/2025 — relied upon for the view that mere uploading of an SCN or order on the common portal does not, in the stated circumstances, constitute sufficient service and that appeals dismissed as time-barred in such circumstances may be restored for decision on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondents to condone the delay of 101 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward -II Circle -J, Zone Jaipur-III, whereby, GST demand of Rs. 14,74,148/- for Financial Year: 2020-2021, was raised on account of excess availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said Order was filed on 04.10.2025. However, the Appellate Authority vide Order dated 02.01.2026 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, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 18.04.2026.
2. As per the facts on record, two separate adjudication orders were passed against the petitioner for the same Financial Year i.e., 20202021. The first Order-in-Original dated 11.07.2024 raised a demand of Rs.13,12,928/- on the basis of an alleged discrepancy between the outward supplies declared in Form GSTR-3B and the supplies reflected in the E-way bills. Subsequently, a second Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 was passed in respect of the same financial year, raising a demand of Rs.14,74,148/- on a separate stated basis of alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit. Upon noticing the apparent multiplicity of adjudication orders concerning the same financial year, Respondent No. 5, suo motu, passed a rectification order dated 10.09.2025, whereby the earlier Order-in-Original dated 11.07.2024 was withdrawn and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 11.07.2024 ceased to operate, leaving the subsequent order dated 25.02.2025 as the operative adjudication order against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide He submits that the petitioner remained unaware of the passing of the show cause notice dated 22.11.2024 and the consequent Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 as the same were uploaded on the GST portal under the head “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Notices and Orders”.
The said notice and Order were never served upon the petitioner manually or in hard copy. He submits that the delay is thus occasioned by genuine and sufficient cause, and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.
3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner came to know of the alleged demand of Rs. 14,74,148/-against it, for the first time, only when the Department recovered the demand amount arbitrarily from its bank account. Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period
3.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 has been passed in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing was ever granted to the petitioner. He submits that the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits and overlooking the date of communication.
4. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
9. Aside above, reference may be had to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.6, wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken.
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:-
i. Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
ii. Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in orginal, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
iii. In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
iv. Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.
v. In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
10. We are in respectful agreement with the above view and accordingly, see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner therein.
11. Taking a wholesome view, the delay of 101 days (after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing the appeal before the appellate authority under Section 107 is hereby condoned and petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal afresh, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this court.
12. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 02.01.2026 is set aside. The Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation.
13. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
Notes:
1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
3 D.B. CWP 14658/2024
4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025
5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
6 (2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025.
