Pratap Power Spares Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking condonation of a delay of 99 days in filing an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle-A, Jaipur. The Order-in-Original had raised a GST demand of ₹20,67,203 for the financial year 2018–2019 on account of availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner filed the statutory appeal on 03.04.2024, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it by order dated 08.04.2024 on the ground that it lacked the statutory power to condone the delay beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court through the present writ petition.
The petitioner submitted that the delay was neither deliberate nor intentional but occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. It was stated that the wife of the proprietor, Smt. Seema Shekhawat, had been suffering from severe Guillain-Barré Syndrome and was admitted to the ICU of Shalby Hospital in September 2023. She continued to undergo regular medical treatment thereafter. According to the petitioner, owing to her critical medical condition and the resulting personal hardship, the proprietor was unable to effectively manage the firm’s affairs or pursue the statutory proceedings within the prescribed period.
The petitioner further contended that because of these circumstances, it could not submit a reply to the Show Cause Notice, resulting in the Assistant Commissioner passing the Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2023 without affording an effective opportunity of hearing.
Relying upon various Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, including M/s M R Traders v. UOI, 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., the petitioner argued that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay arising from circumstances beyond its control and that the appeal should be directed to be considered on merits after condonation of delay.
The respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the impugned order was correctly passed and that the appeal had become barred by limitation.
The High Court observed that although the Appellate Authority was bound by the statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the reasons preventing the petitioner from filing the appeal within the stipulated period were beyond its control. The Court held that refusal to adjudicate the appeal on merits in such circumstances would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
The Court noted that in the judgments cited by the petitioner, the High Court had consistently allowed similar writ petitions and directed that the appeals be entertained and decided on merits.
Following its consistent view, the High Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay of 99 days after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act. It directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and adjudicate the petitioner’s appeal on merits, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date of uploading of the Court’s order on its website.
The stay petition and all pending applications were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- 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), 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
- M/s M R Traders v. UOI (Rajasthan High Court), 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks a direction commanding re-spondents to condone the delay of 99 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle -A, Jaipur, whereby GST demand of Rs.20,67,203/- for Financial Year 2018-2019, was raised on the account of availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 03.04.2024. How- ever, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.04.2024 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to con-done the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 31.05.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filingthe appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but was occasioned by compelling and unavoidable circumstances. He contends that the wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm, Smt. Seema Shekhawat, had been suffering from severe Guillain-Barré Syndrome during the relevant period and was admitted to the ICU of Shalby Hospital in September 2023. She has continued to undergo regular medical treatment there- after. Owing to her critical medical condition and the consequent per- sonal hardship, the proprietor was unable to effectively attend to the business affairs of the firm or pursue the statutory proceedings within the prescribed time.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, whereupon the respondent Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned Order dated 28.08.2023, without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.
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 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 Ra- jasthan & 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.
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, con- sidering 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 judgments 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 con- doning the delay of 99 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 web- site of this Court.
10. Stay petition and all pending application 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
