Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Service tax penalty can’t survive when assessee acted on dept.’s own view of non-taxability: Delhi High Court. *  GST section 74 extended limitation questionable when form 26AS mismatch was already known: Karnataka High Court grants interim relief. *  CGST demand prima facie impermissible after state GST settlement under section 128A: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court asks GSTAT to sympathetically consider delay as taxpayers pursued remedy before wrong forum. *  Supreme Court stays Tripura High Court ruling protecting genuine buyers from ITC denial over supplier’s GST default. *  Diary entries alone can’t prove clandestine removal of goods: CESTAT quashes excise penalty on steel trader. *  Customs could investigate preferential tariff claims even before sec. 28DA: Delhi High Court. *  Customs dept. relied on fake AI generated case laws: supreme court quashes Rs. 425.28 crore penalty. *  No GST exemption in affiliation and annual registration charges for admission or conduct Of examinations: GSTAT. *  Mere invoices, cheque payments insufficient to establish genuine movement of goods: GSTAT restores Rs. 43.44 lakh ITC demand. *  Consolidated GST show cause notice covering multiple financial years is not without jurisdiction: Delhi High Court. *  Construction of independent houses on separate plots not taxable as ‘Residential Complex’ without common facilities: CESTAT. *  GST penalty exceeding statutory maximum unsustainable; Allahabad High Court quashes ? 50,000/- penalty after taxpayer filed return and paid late fee. *  GST order against standard chartered bank passed without hearing set aside by Bombay High Court. *  Retracted statements can’t be relied upon without cross-examination: CESTAT quashes gold confiscation. *  Burden to prove misclassification lies on customs department: CESTAT. *  CESTAT quashes Rs. 98 lakh excise demand on clearance of used refractory brick scrap. *  Service tax demand on irrigation works quashed: Karnataka High Court rules sale of goods component not taxable as service. *  GSTAT restores tax and penalty for transporting iron scrap without E-way bill citing intent to evade tax. *  Madras High Court stays GST recovery from directors without opportunity to show cause under section 89. *  Madras high court stays GST recovery notice against directors; finds prima facie case on applicability of section 79(1)(c). *  Procedural lapses can’t justify harsh punishment without serious customs breach: CESTAT quashes customs broker licence revocation. *  Service tax payable on land leasing and sports complex charges: CESTAT. *  Settled customs dispute can’t be reopened through Article 226 challenge to interest liability: Delhi High Court. *  Mere facilitation of customs clearance can’t establish knowledge of smuggling: Madras High Court. *  GST registration cancellation stayed: Allahabad High Court questions 99% ITC utilisation cap under rule 86B. *  Composition scheme lapses automatically on crossing Rs. 1.5 crore turnover: GSTAT. *  Gujarat High Court quashes GST cancellation orders after officer relied on non-existent AI-generated case laws. *  Importers liable for customs duty benefits availed through manipulated scrips: Delhi High Court. *  Procedural E-way bill lapse alone can’t justify penalty where genuine transaction and absence of tax evasion are established: GSTAT.
Subject News *  Documentary evidence dominates probe, further custody unwarranted: mumbai court grants bail in Rs. 22.44 crore customs duty evasion case. *  Business premises can’t remain sealed for non-participation in GST search: Allahabad High Court. *  GST pre-deposit must be refunded proportionately when taxpayer partly succeeds in appeal: Bombay High Court. *  Supreme Court grants 30 days to file GST appeal; keeps pre-deposit issue open due to deposit in parallel CGST proceedings. *  GST demand can’t exceed amount proposed in SCN: Allahabad High Court quashes Rs. 20.47 Crore order. *  Hundreds-of-crores GST demand and heavy 10% pre-deposit no ground to bypass statutory appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Delhi High Court refuses to entertain challenge to gold confiscation due to statutory appeal remedy and unexplained delay. *  Procedural error in customs broker licence inquiry can be rectified through remand: Delhi High Court. *  GSTR-2A mismatch alone can’t justify ITC denial without invoice-wise verification; personal hearing mandatory: GSTAT. *  GST order passed without uploading personal hearing notices violates sec. 75(4): Allahabad High Court. *  TAX EVASION - Sec. 74 GST SCN quashed for not spelling out fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression: Allahabad High Court. *  STPI’s SOFTEX certification and NoC charges taxable as business support services: CESTAT. *  Suspicion can’t replace proof: CESTAT quashes penalty in alleged gold-smuggling operation. *   Limitation runs from communication of order: Madras High Court upholds rejection of delayed GST Appeals. *  Rajasthan High Court quashes GST demand over unsigned show cause notice. *  ITC recovery upheld where supplier failed to deposit GST: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs commissioner’s empowered to make port trust liable for duty on pilfered goods: Supreme Court. *  Rectification proceedings can’t be used to challenge an uncontested GST assessment through a writ petition: Andhra Pradesh HC. *  GST proceedings against deceased proprietor unsustainable without notice to legal heir: GSTAT. *  Mere availment of ineligible self-assessed ITC doesn’t amount to suppression without evidence of fraud or wilful misstatement: GSTAT. *  Disposal of mining overburden by entity authorised by mining lease holder constitutes taxable service: CESTAT. *  Toll plaza data not mandatory for ITC refund: GSTAT. *  Disputed GST fraud allegations require investigation: Punjab and Haryana High Court makes interim bail absolute in alleged fraud and GST fraud case. *  Non-manufacturer contractor liable to deposit excess excise duty collected from buyer: CESTAT. *  GST order can’t reject taxpayer’s reply as “not satisfactory” without reasons: Madhya Pradesh High Court. *  Uncorroborated statements can’t establish alleged diversion of duty-free goods: CESTAT. *  Erection services were not liable to service tax prior to 10th september 2004: CESTAT. *  Sec. 74 GST notice must spell out statutory ingredients for invoking extended tax demand proceedings: Allahabad High Court. *  No jurisdictional bar under section 6(2)(b) in parallel CGST SGST proceedings: Delhi High Court refuses to bypass GST appeal remedy. *  Madras High Court remits GST demand for fresh adjudication after taxpayer claims it was unaware of SCN following business closure.  

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