Shiva Steelage Private Limited Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court considered a writ petition filed by Shiva Steelage Private Limited seeking directions to the respondents to entertain its appeal, condone the delay and permit the filing of an appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 04.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Jaipur III AC/CTO Ward, Circle-N, Jaipur. The order concerned Financial Year 2018-19 and raised a GST demand of Rs. 30,51,323/- on account of alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner.
The petitioner stated that the statutory appeal could not be filed because the online status showed the appeal as time-barred. The petitioner therefore approached the High Court by way of a writ petition filed on 24.07.2026.
Petitioner’s Submissions on Delay and Communication
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate. According to the submission, the impugned order had merely been uploaded on the GST portal and had not been effectively communicated through e-mail, SMS or by supply of a certified copy.
It was further submitted that the petitioner depended upon its Chartered Accountant and accountant for compliance with the GST portal and appellate procedure and was not well-versed with the procedure. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the passing of the order and the limitation for filing the appeal.
The petitioner also submitted that the order dated 04.05.2024 had been passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no effective opportunity of hearing had been afforded.
The petitioner contended that the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act was no longer available because the Appellate Authority had no power under Section 107(4) to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period.
Earlier Rajasthan HC Decisions Relied Upon
The petitioner’s counsel relied upon 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 & Or, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The petitioner argued that sufficient cause had been shown for the delay and that the appeal should therefore be considered on merits after condonation of the delay.
The Court noted that, in the judgments cited above, the Rajasthan High Court had allowed writ petitions and issued directions for appeals to be entertained on merits.
Rajasthan HC Agrees With Punjab and Haryana HC View
The Court also considered the Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., which dealt with service of proceedings through uploading on the Common Portal.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court had held, among other things, 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 a show-cause notice was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal and an ex parte order was subsequently passed, proceedings could be restored to the stage of issuance of the show-cause notice.
The judgment also stated that where an order-in-original was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would not be triggered. It further provided for restoration of appeals dismissed on limitation grounds in specified circumstances and restoration of proceedings where ex parte adjudication followed portal-only service.
The Rajasthan High Court stated that, after thoughtful consideration, it was in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Court’s Findings on Limitation and Prejudice
The respondents opposed the petitioner’s submissions and contended that the impugned order had rightly been passed and that the appeal was barred by limitation.
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the Appellate Authority was bound by the statutory limitation provisions under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. However, considering the reasons due to which the petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated period and which the Court described as being beyond the petitioner’s control, the Court held that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
Following the consistent view already taken by the Rajasthan High Court, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
Appeal Directed to Be Heard on Merits
The Court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner’s appeal and adjudicate it on merits, provided that the appeal is filed within 30 days from the date the instant order is uploaded on the website of the Rajasthan High Court.
All pending applications were disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M/s M R Traders v. UOI, 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115.
- Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., (2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. CWP 11794/2025.
- RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. CWP 7260/2025.
- M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Or, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938.
- Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., D.B. CWP 14658/2024.
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 04.05.2024 (Financial Years 2018-19) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, CGST Division, Jaipur III AC/CTO Ward, Circle-N, Jaipur, whereby GST demand of Rs. 30,51,323/- for Financial Years 2018-19, was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. 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. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 24.07.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that delay in filing appeal against impugned order was major intentional nor deliberate. The Petitioner could not file the statutory appeal within the prescribed period as the impugned order was merely uploaded on the GST portal and was not effectively communicated by e-mail, SMS or by supply of a certified copy. The Petitioner was dependent upon his Chartered Accountant and accountant for compliance with the GST portal and appellate procedure and, being not well-versed with the said procedure, remained unaware of the passing of the order and the limitation for filing the appeal.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that the impugned order dated 04.05.2024 has been passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. It is contended that the statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act is no longer available since the Appellate Authority has no power under Section 107(4) to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period.
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. UOI 1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Or 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. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
6. Aside above, our attention has been gone 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 can- not 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 original,
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 where after,
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, where after, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”
7. Having given out thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we are in respectful agreement therewith and accordingly, see no reason why the benefit be not accorded to the petitioner therein.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. All pending application(s) 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
