Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Missing seized records must be considered while testing ITC claim; duplicate GST demands ordered corrected: Delhi High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be rejected without addressing taxpayer’s grounds: Allahabad High Court. *  Surplus IGST credit can offset CGST, SGST shortfall: GSTAT. *  GST refund can’t be denied when cancelled airfares are returned with tax: GSTAT. *  3 Hearing notices issued within 2 minutes: Gujarat High Court flags portal flaw, seeks report. *  GSTR-9, GSTR-9C filing for FY 2025-26 enabled; pending GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B must be filed first. *  Dupattas are exempt fabrics, can’t be taxed as fibres at 4%: Madras High Court. *  Full transitional credit allowed on capital goods received after GST rollout: GSTAT denies Rs. 6.99 lakh export duty credit. *  GST return mismatch alone can’t justify fraud proceedings: GSTAT orders fresh adjudication under section 73. *  Supplier found non-existent later can’t alone justify input tax credit denial: GSTAT. *  GST interest stops once tax reaches government account, can’t run until return filing: GSTAT. *  Cancelled flat booking- GST refund can’t be denied without excluding COVID period from limitation: GSTAT. *  India notifies rules of origin for India–New Zealand FTA. *  Incomplete E-bike kits classifiable as complete vehicles, but not eligible for CKD duty concession: CESTAT. *  Same GST rate on main input and output can’t by itself bar inverted duty refund: GSTAT. *  Unjust enrichment doesn’t apply to customs refunds from assessments finalised before July 13, 2006: Gujarat High Court. *  CENVAT credit can’t be denied solely because plant And machinery are embedded in earth: Karnataka High Court. *  DFIA exports ineligible for RoDTEP benefits; customs directs repayment with applicable interest. *  Second E-Way bill alone doesn’t prove another supply: GSTAT. *  Bail denied in Rs. 1.19 crore fake GST refund case over risk of accused absconding again: Punjab and Haryana High Court. *  GST registration can be restored after revocation deadline if outstanding dues are paid: Gauhati High Court. *  Multiple GST proceedings over same suppliers: Calcutta High Court directs dept. to share findings for adjudication. *  E-Governance portal services not OIDAR, fixed deposit interest not taxable: CESTAT. *  Rs. 500 Stamp duty required on authority letters for CAs, CMA and GST practitioners in Pune GST division.  *  Rs. 1.10 crore GST refund must be paid in cash after business closure: Allahabad High Court. *  Godown rent attracts 18% GST even when used exclusively for exempt agricultural warehousing: AAR. *  GST portal launches "Multi-State Registration" facility: one master TRN for registration applications across multiple States/UTs. *  RoDTEP scheme extended till 31st December, 2026.  *  Mere disagreement with order can’t override Rs. 20 lakh appeal limit: GSTAT. *  Customs interest can’t be backdated before confiscation liability is determined; nearly 8 year period excluded: Delhi High Court.
Subject News *  GST summons: anticipatory bail maintainable without arrest order, but relief denied in evasion case: Allahabad High Court. *  GST Appeal can’t be decided without hearing taxpayer’s objections to fresh evidence: Allahabad High Court. *  GST ITC can’t be reversed merely because supplier grants discount without reducing tax liability: GSTAT. *  Mere quoting of GST provision is not a valid charge: GSTAT quashes ITC denial. *  Personal hearing mandatory before adverse GST order, even without taxpayer’s request: Rajasthan High Court. *  Parallel bail pleas without full disclosure amount to abuse of process Rs. 43.08 crore GST case sent for fresh hearing: Supreme Court. *  GST refund based on unchallenged advance ruling can’t be recovered using later circular: GSTAT. *  Payment of GST alone doesn’t end interest and penalty liability when tax and interest remain unpaid beyond 30 days of notice: GSTAT. *  GST demand over builders’ 80% procurement rule requires reasoned adjudication: GSTAT. *  Eligible ITC doesn’t automatically entitle taxpayers to compensation cess refund on domestic sales: GSTAT. *  GST confiscation order passed before reply deadline invalid: GSTAT. *  GST interest can’t be retained after tax refund on delayed export receipts: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  GST appeal can’t be dismissed over pre-deposit shortfall without opportunity To respond: Bombay High Court. *  DGGI SCN can’t be challenged before reply and adjudication:Chhattisgarh High Court. *  GST input tax credit can’t be denied solely due to supplier’s retrospective registration cancellation: GSTAT. *  GST notice must explain fraud allegations; merely repeating section 74 Is not enough:  Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  Audit detection alone can’t justify GST fraud penalty; specific suppression must be proved: GSTAT. *  GST order uploaded only under ‘Additional Notices’ tab without separate intimation set aside: Calcutta High Court. *  Service Tax appeal can’t be rejected for missing pre-deposit proof when payment is already recorded: CESTAT. *  SGST dept. can’t hear appeal against CGST order: Calcutta High Court. *  Mere dispatch of tax order can’t prove service or make appeal time-barred: CESTAT. *  Dealer incentives can’t be taxed merely on ledger entries: CESTAT. *  DGFT orders quashed for failure to supply DRI letter relied upon in SCN: Bombay High Court. *  GST penalty u/s 122(1A) can’t apply to Pre-2021 transactions; unregistered beneficiaries also covered: Delhi High Court. *  Expired E-way bill caused by wrong PIN code can’t justify GST penalty without intent to evade tax: GSTAT. *  Used railway rails can’t be taxed as track material without proof they are fit for reuse: CESTAT. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand on different issue: Delhi High Court. *  ITC dispute involves no question of law: GSTAT directs appeal to Vice-President. *  Earlier DGGI notice doesn’t bar separate GST demand On different issue: Delhi High Court. *  No E-way bill required for interstate goods movement in november 2017: GSTAT quashes detention and penalty.  

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