Khandelwal Decor World Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
Summary: Rajasthan High Court directed the GST Appellate Authority to entertain Khandelwal Decor World’s delayed appeal on merits after finding that the 125-day delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. The petitioner challenged an Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025 raising a demand of Rs. 17,85,532/- for FY 2021-22 on account of an alleged discrepancy between utilised Input Tax Credit and the cash payment ratio reflected on the common portal. It contended that the order had not been effectively communicated and was merely uploaded on the GST Portal. According to the petitioner, despite submitting a reply dated 09.10.2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2025 and specifically requesting a personal hearing, no effective hearing was granted.
The petitioner claimed that it learnt about the order only on 20.07.2026 after acquiring knowledge of recovery from its Electronic Credit Ledger on 08.06.2026. The respondents objected to the writ petition on the ground that the alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 had not been availed. The High Court declined to directly entertain the substantive challenge without exhaustion of the statutory appeal but accepted the explanation for delay. Following its earlier Division Bench decisions concerning delayed GST appeals, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and adjudicate the appeal on merits, provided the petitioner files it within 30 days from uploading of the High Court’s order on its website. The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M/s M R Traders v. UOI (Rajasthan High Court); 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 — relied upon for entertaining a delayed GST appeal on merits where sufficient cause for delay was shown.
- M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12076/2024; decided on 26.07.2024; 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 — relied upon for directing consideration of a time-barred GST appeal on merits where sufficient cause was established.
- Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14658/2024; decided on 09.09.2024 — relied upon for the Court’s approach of permitting delayed GST appeals to be considered on merits.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7260/2025; decided on 02.07.2025 — relied upon for consideration of a delayed statutory GST appeal on merits.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Rajasthan High Court); D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11794/2025; decided on 12.08.2025 — relied upon for consideration of a delayed statutory GST appeal on merits.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025, passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-G, Zone III, Jaipur, (Financial Year 2021-22) whereby demand of Rs. 17,85,532/- was raised against the petitioner on account of alleged discrepancy between utilized Input Tax Credit and cash payment ratio, as per the data available on the common portal. The petitioner further seeks a direction commanding the respondents to entertain the appeal against the impugned Order-inOriginal and also condone the delay in filing the same. The appeal against the said Order-in-Original could not per force be filed before the Appellate Authority as the online status of the appeal would reveal that the same is time-barred. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 21.08.2026.
2. Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the non filing of the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. It is submitted that the petitioner could not file the statutory appeal within the prescribed period as the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025 was never effectively communicated to the petitioner and was merely uploaded on the GST Portal. They further submit that the petitioner had duly submitted a reply dated 09.10.2025 to the Show Cause Notice dated 09.09.2025 and had specifically sought an opportunity of personal hearing.
2.1 Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that despite the specific request for personal hearing, no effective opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Without affording such opportunity, the respondent authority proceeded to pass the impugned Order-in-Original dated 19.12.2025 in an ex parte and mechanical manner. The petitioner was thereby deprived of an effective and meaningful opportunity to explain its case, resulting in a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.
2.2 Learned counsels for the petitioner lastly submit that the petitioner came to know of the impugned Order-in-Original only subsequently on 20.07.2026, upon acquiring the knowledge of the recovery of demand from the Electronic Credit Ledger on 08.06.2026.
They submit that the petitioner immediately took steps to challenge the same, however, by then, the statutory period for filing the appeal had expired.
2.3 Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. At the outset, learned counsels for the respondents object to the maintainability of the writ petition herein stating that the alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, has not been availed.
5. Statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority is provided against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2026 For ready reference, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as under:-
“Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.-
Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.”
x-x-x-x-x
6. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to directly entertain the writ petition without the petitioner exhausting its alternate statutory remedy.
7. The facts on record reveal that the instant writ petition was filed against the impugned Order-in-Original on 21.08.2026, i.e., after a delay of 125 days beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. Having considered the reasons stated by learned counsels for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.
8. 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 & 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.
9. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits even if, the same were time barred, provided sufficient cause was shown.
10. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this court.
11. Disposed of accordingly, with liberty as above. All pending applications 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
