Case Law Details
Rajoria Bharat Gas Vs Union of India (Rajasthan High Court)
The Rajasthan High Court issued notice to the respondents and heard the parties on a writ petition where the petitioner submitted that the GST appeal could not be filed on the portal as it was beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017/Rajasthan GST Act, 2017. The petitioner stated that the delay occurred as the consultant, who was aware of the order passed under Section 73 of the Act, fell sick and could not communicate with the petitioner, while the petitioner himself could not learn of the impugned order in time due to pressure of LPG gas deliveries arising from the paucity in the country on account of the Gulf War. The petitioner requested permission to file a physical appeal to be decided on merits.
The GST Departments opposed the petition, contending that knowledge of the consultant should be presumed to be knowledge of the petitioner and that the reasons for condoning the delay were not acceptable.
The High Court observed that the impugned order imposed an additional tax demand under Section 73 of the Act and involved no allegation of fraud. It further observed that whether the additional tax was payable had to be examined on merits and that, even if the appellate forum was otherwise unavailable, the petitioner could not be left remediless to challenge the order on merits.
The Court referred to its earlier decisions in M/s. Makkhan Lal And Sons vs Union of India and Others (with connected petitions), Jagdamba Motors vs. Union of India & Ors., M/s Komal Marble vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., M/s World Trade Park Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., M/s. Ramesh Chand Ramavtar vs Union of India and Others, and M/s Uttam Prakash vs Union of India and Others. It also referred to the Supreme Court decision in M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 477.
Following those decisions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, condoned the delay in filing the appeal, and directed the petitioner to file a fresh appeal within 15 days. It directed that, if filed within that period, the Appellate Authority shall hear the appeal on merits without examining the issue of limitation. The Court further directed that all arguments raised by the petitioner be considered and that a speaking order be passed. All pending applications were also disposed of.
Cases Discussed
- M/s. Ramesh Chand Ramavtar vs Union of India and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9988/2025.
- M/s Uttam Prakash vs Union of India and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20749/2025.
- M/s. Makkhan Lal And Sons vs Union of India and Others, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19684/2024 (with connected petitions).
- M/s World Trade Park Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2385/2024, dated 01.12.2025.
- Jagdamba Motors vs. Union of India & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4740/2024, decided on 27.11.2024.
- M/s Komal Marble vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1113/2024, decided on 15.02.2024.
- M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2021) 12 SCC 477.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
1. Issue notice to respondents.
2. Mr. Ashish Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1.
3. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, learned AAAG accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 & 4.
4. Ms. Aditi Tank, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal is not being accepted on the portal as the same is beyond the period prescribed as under Section 107 Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/Rajasthan Goods and Services Act, 2017. He submits that the delay in filing of the appeal has occurred only on account of the reason that the assessee’s consultant who was made aware of the order passed under Section 73 of the Act could not communicate with the petitioner on account of his having fallen sick at the same time, the assessee himself could not find out about the impugned orders in time on account of pressure of delivery of LPG Gas due to the paucity arising in the country on account of the Gulf War.
6. Learned counsel submits that they may be allowed to file an appeal and the same may be heard on merits by the Appellate Authorities and for the purpose, a physical copy may be allowed to be filed.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respective GST Departments, however in opposition submitted that once there is knowledge of the impugned order with the consultant, it would be presumed that the same is with the petitioner too. The reasons coming forward for condoning the delay cannot be accepted.
8. We have considered the submissions.
9. We find that the order impugned has imposed additional demand on the petitioner. The order is under Section 73 of the Act and there is no allegation of fraud. The issue whether the additional amount of tax is required to paid or not has to be examined on merits. If the appellate forum is held to be not available, then too, the petitioner cannot be left remediless to challenge on merits the order impugned.
10. In M/s. Makkhan Lal And Sons vs Union of India and Others, with connected petitions decided by this Court in D.B. Civil Writ Peitition No.19684/2024, this Court having considered all the aspects and the law in this regard passed following order:
“1.Learned AAG as well as associate of learned Additional Solicitor General fairly state that the issue regarding delay in filing of appeal resulting in the dismissal of the appeal against the appeal filed by the assessee on account of the limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST Act, 2017/the CGST Act, 2017, has been examined by this Court in the case of “Jagdamba Motors vs. Union of India & Ors.” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4740/2024) and connected matters; decided on 27.11.2024 and again in the case of “M/s Komal Marble vs. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1113/2024), decided on 15.02.2024, which have been followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “M/s World Trade Park Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.” (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2385/2024), dated 01.12.2025, (Annexure-R/2).
2. Learned counsels are ad idem that the present matters may be decided accordingly.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not press any other prayer.
4. In view thereto, we dispose of these writ petitions at this stage and condone the delay in filing of the appeal; as allowed by the Supreme Court in the case of “M/s Tecnimont Pvt. Ltd vs. State of Punjab and Ors.” (2021) 12 SCC 477 and direct the petitioners to file an appeal afresh. If such an appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be taken up on merits by the Appellate Authority without delving on to the issue of limitations.
5. All the arguments which the petitioners want to take, shall be allowed to be taken up and a speaking order shall be passed.
6. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
7. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.”
11. In another case M/s. Ramesh Chand Ramavtar vs Union of India and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9988/2025) the delay was condoned by this Court with direction to hear the appeal, if such an appeal is filed within 15 days. Similar order has been passed in the case of M/s Uttam Prakash vs Union of India and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20749/2025).
12. Having noted aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition and condone the delay in filing the appeal as allowed in the case of Tecnimont Private Limited vs State of Punjab and Others (2021) 12 SCC 477 and direct the petitioner to file an appeal afresh. If such an appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be taken up on merits by the Appellate Authority without delving on to the issue of limitation.
13. All the arguments which the petitioner wants to take, shall be allowed to be taken up and a speaking order shall be passed.
14. All pending applications stand disposed of.
Author Bio
