Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments
Print   |    |  Comment

GST update /2026-27/0017

M/s Ramdev Builders vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
Hon’ble Court: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Case Title: M/s Ramdev Builders vs State of Rajasthan & Ors
Petition No. & Citation: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4504/2026 [2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB]
Date of Order:16.04.2026
Outcome: Writ Petition partly allowed – Delay condoned and appeal directed to be heard on merits

Brief Facts of the Case
The petitioner, M/s Ramdev Builders, was subjected to GST demand orders for the Financial Years 2017-18, 2018-19, and 2019-20 on account of alleged excess availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit (ITC). The Department raised demands along with consequential proceedings including attachment.
The petitioner failed to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 due to extraordinary personal circumstances, including multiple deaths in the family, causing severe mental distress and financial hardship. Consequently, the appeal became time-barred, and the petitioner approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay.

Relevant Section / Rule / Notification
• Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017

Question before Hon’ble Court
• Whether delay in filing appeal can be condoned in writ jurisdiction?
•   Whether genuine hardship constitutes sufficient cause for delay?

Brief Arguments by Petitioner
  1. Delay due to unavoidable circumstances
The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond their control. Multiple deaths in the family between 2019 and 2025 caused severe emotional and financial distress. These events disrupted normal business functioning and decision-making. As a result, the petitioner was unable to file the appeal within the prescribed time.
  1. No negligence or intention to delay
The petitioner contended that the continuous family losses cannot be treated as an ordinary delay. The prolonged grief, depression, and financial hardship made it impossible to take timely legal action. The delay was neither intentional nor due to negligence but caused by genuine incapacity. Due to these circumstances, the petitioner could not arrange legal assistance or comply with appeal requirements. Denial of condonation would result in grave injustice by upholding an order on mere technical grounds instead of merits.
 
  1. Reliance on judicial precedents
The petitioner relied on judicial precedents, including M/s M R Traders v. Union of India (2026 SCC OnLine Raj 2115) and M/s Molana Construction Company v. CGST Department (2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938), to contend that where delay in filing appeal occurs due to circumstances beyond the control of the assessee, the same constitutes “sufficient cause”. Accordingly, it was argued that in such genuine cases, the delay deserves to be condoned and the appeal should be directed to be decided on merits in the interest of substantial justice.

Brief Arguments by Respondent
The Revenue contended that the appeal was rightly rejected as time-barred and no further condonation is permissible under GST law.

Findings and Judgment
  1.  Denial of appeal would cause injustice
The Court held that although the Appellate Authority is bound by limitation under Section 107, the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control, and denying adjudication on merits would result in serious injustice and prejudice.
  1. Appeal directed to be decided on merits
 The Appellate Authority is directed to now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits


This is solely for educational purpose:-

Opinion

Author’s Comment
Situations involving delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) are extremely common in practical GST litigation. In many cases, taxpayers fail to file appeals within the prescribed limitation period due to genuine and unavoidable reasons such as lack of regular access to the GST portal, medical emergencies, deaths in the family, financial crises, family disputes, or other personal hardships. Quite often, the assessee may not even become aware of the order uploaded on the portal within time. However, in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in Singh Enterprises v. CCE [Appeal (Civil) no. 5949 of 2007] and Assistant Commissioner v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd. [Appeal (Civil) No. 2413 of 2020], the appellate authorities are bound by the statutory provisions and cannot condone delay beyond the additional period prescribed under the statute, i.e., beyond 30 days. As a result, even genuine taxpayers are often denied an opportunity of hearing due to circumstances beyond their control. In this background, the present judgment serves as a ray of hope for taxpayers facing genuine hardship. The decision reiterates that substantial justice should not be defeated merely on technical grounds, particularly where the delay is bona fide and sufficiently explained.
It is also pertinent to note that during the initial years of GST implementation, the authorities were adopting a comparatively liberal approach in accepting time-barred appeals at the Commissioner (Appeals) stage. However, such liberal interpretation is no longer being followed. Consequently, in practical scenarios, a large number of appeals are being rejected solely on the ground of limitation without adjudication on merits. In our view, to reduce unnecessary litigation and prevent additional burden on the High Courts arising solely from time-barred appeals, the Government should consider introducing a one-time amnesty scheme. Such a scheme may permit taxpayers to file delayed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) within a specified temporary window, with corresponding condonation of delay for that limited period. This would promote substantial justice and provide relief to genuine taxpayers who could not avail the appellate remedy within time due to unavoidable circumstances.
 

Post a Comment
Department News


Query
 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com