GST UPDATE

Condonation of delay should be granted where there are sufficient reasons present which are beyond the control of the appellant.

Civil Writ Petition No.:12145/2026

Court: High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench)

Case Title: M/s New Godara Trading Co. v State of Rajasthan and various ors.

Outcome:In favour of Appellant

Judgement Date: 20.08.2026

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

M/s New Godara Trading Co. (petitioner) preferred an appeal against an order-in-original. However, same was rejected by the appellate authority on the grounds of the limitation. Being aggrieved by the rejection order, appellant preferred a civil writ petition and sought relief in the form of appeal remedy against the order-in-original. The appeal was sought to be filed as per Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017 irrespective of the time limit mentioned under sub-clause 4 of Section 107 of CGST Act.

QUESTION BEFORE HON’BLE COURT:

Whether condonation of delay should be granted where the appeal has been filed belatedly due to reasons being in the nature of uncontrollable in hands of the appellant and genuine?

BRIEF ARGUMENTS BY PETITIONER:
Petitioner submitted following contentions: -

That the present matter is squarely covered by the facts of the case of M/s Pratap Power Spares v. Union of India & ors [Civil Writ Petition No. 9882/2024) in which judgment was given by Jaipur bench of this court. In the judgement it was observed that an appeal was filed by the appellant against an order passed by the adjudicating authority. However, the same was dismissed by the appellate authority on the grounds of limitation and on the basis that the appellate authority does not have power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, this writ petition was preferred by the Petitioner. Petitioner submitted that the delay occurred due to the fact that wife of the proprietor firm was suffering from severe disease during the relevant period and was required to undergo regular medical treatment which led to the proprietor not being able to attend the business affairs of the firm effectively. Thus, it was held that where the appellant produces sufficient reasons which are beyond his control leading to delayed filing of appeal, then in such case, appellate authority shall entertain the appeal filed by the appellant and adjudicate the same on merits.
Along with that, reliance was placed upon the following judgement given by this Hon’ble Court in the case of

M/s Kakar Automobiles v. Union of India & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 13403/2026)

With regard to the reliance placed by the revenue department on the judgement given in the case of Sharwan Singh Devda V. The Union of India & Ors. petitioner contended that there is no absolute bar to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely where the writ petition has been preferred after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal, though not as a matter of course.
Further, it is submitted that the court has observed that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, may interfere with the original order, notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation. The instant case is not a matter of course and the court may interfere with the original order notwithstanding the fact that the period for filing appeal has been lapsed.

BRIEF ARGUMENTS BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT:

Revenue Department contended that:

That the appeal was filed beyond the limitation prescribed under relevant provision as provided by the CGST Act 2017, hence, deserves to be rejected. For this reliance was placed upon the judgement in the case of Sharwan Singh Devda v. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 15910/2026) in which it was held that the court cannot disregard the limitation imposed by the statute. The writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory time period prescribed for filing appeal. Along with that, interference can be justified only in those case where order has been passed by completely ignoring the principles of natural justice or where there is inherent lack of jurisdiction. If such circumstances are missing, then in such case writ petition cannot be entertained.

FINDINGS & JUDGEMENT:

Following are the findings of the Court in the instant case:

It was observed that the appellate authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the CGST Act 2017. However, in the instant case, delay occurred due to the belated communication at the end of the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant about the fact that an order has been passed by the adjudicating authority. Thus, this led to filing of appeal beyond time limit specified under the Act. However, it was observed that the non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, the delay deserves to be condoned.
Based on above, the court gave direction to the appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal as admissible.

Thus, it was held that the writ petition by the petitioner is allowed and the direction was given to the appellate authority to consider the appeal and adjudicate the same on merits.

Comments

GST Update / 2026-27/0076

GST UPDATE

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

QUESTION BEFORE HON’BLE COURT:

BRIEF ARGUMENTS BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT:

FINDINGS & JUDGEMENT:

Opinion

Author’s Comment:

Post a Comment

Query