Rajasthan Mineral Traders Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition seeking condonation of delay and a direction to entertain an appeal against the order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, Enforcement Wing-C, Jaipur, raising a GST demand of Rs.30,82,368/- on payments towards dead rent, royalty, DMFT and RSMET under the reverse charge mechanism. The petitioner stated that the appeal could not be filed because the online appeal status showed it as time-barred under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. The petitioner submitted that the proprietor was occupied with his daughter’s marriage, was unaware of the assessment order and became aware of the demand only after receiving demand calls in January. By then, both the prescribed appeal period and the period within which delay could be condoned had expired. The petitioner contended that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to negligence and resulted from circumstances beyond control.
The petitioner relied on Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court in 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., RPC PSIPL 3V Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and RPC PSIPL 3V Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and that the appeal was barred by limitation.
The 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 were beyond its control. The Court held that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Referring to its earlier judgments, the Court noted that directions had been issued in those matters to entertain appeals on merits after condoning delay. Following that consistent view, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay.
The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and adjudicate the petitioner’s appeal on merits, provided the appeal was filed within 30 days from uploading of the High Court’s order on its website. The petitioner’s challenge to the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 was stated to be not pressed, with liberty to raise and pursue the issue in appropriate proceedings. The issue concerning the vires of Section 107(4) was consequently left open for future adjudication. The stay petition and pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
M/s M R Traders v. UOI — 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
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 No. 14658/2024
RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. — D.B. CWP No. 7260/2025
RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. — D.B. CWP No. 11794/2025
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
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 dated 29.08.2023 (Financial Years 2018-2019) passed by Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, enforcement Wing-C, Jaipur, whereby GST demand of Rs.30,82,368/- was raised on the account that the petitioner was liable to discharge Goods and Services Tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made towards dead rent, royalty, DMFT (District Mineral Foundation Trust), and RSMET. The appeal against the said orders 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. The petitioner is thus left remediless. Hence, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, has preferred this instant writ petition on 14.02.2024.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the present appeal was occasioned by circumstances wholly beyond the control of the petitioner. He submits that the proprietor was occupied with the marriage of his daughter and was unaware of the assessment order. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the demand only upon receiving demand calls in the month of January, whereupon he immediately contacted his counsel. By that time, however, the period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 for filing an appeal, including the period within which delay could be condoned, had expired, leaving no statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority.
2.1. That the delay is neither intentional nor attributable to negligence, but arose from genuine hardship and incapacity, which made it practically impossible to seek legal assistance, arrange the statutory pre-deposit, or initiate appellate proceedings. Refusal to condone the delay would result in grave injustice by allowing an ex-parte and nonspeaking order to attain finality on mere technical grounds, defeating the cause of substantial justice.
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 & 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 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 condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to 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. Before parting, we may also hasten to add that as regards challenge to the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said challenge is not being pressed in the present matter, with liberty to raise and pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. The issue qua the vires of the same is thus left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in future.
11. Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, stand(s) 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
