Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  Gross GST collections surge 15.4% to reach Rs 2.11 lakh crore in July 2026. *  Ghaziabad DGGI | Court Extends Judicial Custody of 2 Accused Involved In GST Fake ITC Fraud of ?31.57 Crore Till 7 August 2026 *  Uploading GST Orders on Portal Alone Is Not Valid Service: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Company Must Be Made Accused Before Fastening Vicarious Liability Against Director In GST Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  No liability without proof of prior knowledge of import misdeclaration: CESTAT drops penalties on customs broker orders. *  4-Day hearing notice violated natural justice: Rajasthan High court quashes Ex-parte GST registration cancellation appeal order. *  10% GST penalty pre-deposit rule not applicable where SCN issued before 1st October 2025: Delhi High Court. *  Stock discrepancy alone can’t prove clandestine removal: CESTAT. *  Dept. can’t deny refund for missing challan in its own records: CESTAT. *  GST dept. can’t arbitrarily treat same services as ‘Intermediary’ for one period and ‘Export of Services’ for others: Punjab & Haryana High Court. Orders. *  Manufacturers can’t claim proportionate cess relief for machines installed during the month: Gujarat High Court. *  GST dept. can’t rely on Prospective rule. 88B amendment to ignore existing judicial precedent: Gujarat HC. *  ITC relief denied where supplier fails to deposit tax: Supreme Court upholds validity of sec. 16(2)(c) of CGST Act. *  Redemption fine can’t be ground to reject SVLDRS declaration: Rajasthan High Court *  Whether dept. can invoke sec. 73 without challenging refund sanction order    - Telangana High court stays GST refund recovery. *  GST recovery against genuine buyer before proceeding against defaulting supplier stayed: Karnataka High Court. *  Assessment order uploaded under wrong portal tab: Karnataka High Court restores GST appeal, condones delay *  CBIC plans faceless GST system; refunds, registration and assessments may go digital in phases *  Bombay High Court warns GST dept. over refund delays, considers 18% interest and recovery from erring officials. *  Failure to issue mandatory ASMT-10 notice vitiates GST proceedings: Rajasthan High Court. *  GST SCN against dead proprietor invalid: Orissa High Court *  GST registration revived despite time-barred appeal, subject to full tax payment: Himachal Pradesh HC *  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
Subject News *  Sales-tax concession cannot be denied unless government notification is expressly rescinded: Telangana High Court. *  GST appeal delay condoned after portal continued to show case as ‘Pending for order’: Rajasthan High Court. *  Customs duty exemption can’t be denied without test report to support reclassification: CESTAT. *  Recovery can’t continue during pending GST appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court directs ITC unblocking after statutory pre-deposit. *  Revenue neutrality must be proven with evidence, not assumptions: Madras High Court restores Rs. 20.37 crore Excise demand. *  GST limitation applies to issuance of assessment order, not its service: Calcutta High Court. *  Time barred SCN can’t sustain service tax demand against sub-contractor: CESTAT. *  Absence of mandatory approval in GST sec. 74 adjudication, Karnataka High Court restrained dept. from coercive action. *  GST registration cancellation: Karnataka High court holds appeal u/s 107 is proper remedy *  Service tax tecovery from deceased proprietor’s widow quashed: Chhattisgarh High Court *  No coercive GST recovery against former partner till appeal is decided: Himachal Pradesh High Court. *  GST appeal barred by limitation, Rajasthan HC allows delayed appeal where delay was beyond taxpayer’s control. *  GST on diagnostic services must first be decided by AAR, not High Court: Delhi HC *  Interim relief granted against GST demand on RIICO land conversion premium: Rajasthan High Court *  Printing manufacturer’s name on packaging for statutory compliance is not branding, GST exemption can’t be denied: GSTAT *  Overseas marketing & support services are export of services, not intermediary services: CESTAT. *  Duty paid through CENVAT credit can’t be demanded again in cash: CESTAT *  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  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

GST Update/ 2026-27/0060

Shri Om Casting vs Assistant Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax

GST UPDATE

Hon’ble Court: Rajasthan High Court
Case Title: Shri Om Casting vs Assistant Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax
Petition No. & Citation: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8117/2026
Hon’ble Judge(s) JUSTICE ARUN MONGA & JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Date of Order 15/07/2026
Outcome Appel Allowed
 

Brief Facts of the Case

The petitioner filed an appeal against the Order-in-Original confirming the demand of excess availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner filed an appeal which involved a delay of 325 days beyond the condonable period. Consequently, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal, holding that it lacked the statutory power to condone such delay. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition.

Relevant Section

Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.

Question before Hon’ble Court / Authority

Whether the High Court can direct condonation of delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act where the delay occurred due to non-communication of the adjudication order and the order was merely uploaded under the "Additional Notice and Order" tab on the GST portal.

Brief Arguments by Petitioner

The delay was bona fide and occurred due to circumstances beyond its control. The adjudication order was never communicated through any prescribed mode of service. Mere uploading of the order under the "Additional Notice and Order" tab cannot be treated as proper communication. The petitioner became aware of the order only after receiving recovery proceedings in Form GST DRC-13 and thereafter filed the appeal without undue delay. Reliance was placed on various previous decisions of the Rajasthan High Court.

Brief Arguments by Respondent

Since the statute does not empower the Appellate Authority to condone delay beyond the permissible period, the rejection of the appeal on the grounds of limitation was justified.

Cases Relied Upon

Case Law Citation
M/s M R Traders v. UOI 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors D.B. CWP 14658/2024
RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors D.B. CWP 7260/2025
RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors D.B. CWP 11794/2025

Findings and Judgement

The Rajasthan High Court observed that although the Appellate Authority is strictly bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, can grant appropriate relief where sufficient cause exists and denial of adjudication on merits would result in grave injustice. The Court relied upon its consistent line of earlier Division Bench judgments wherein similar relief had been granted.
Accordingly, the Court:
Condoned the delay of 325 days (after excluding the statutory condonable period of 120 days under Section 107) and directed the Appellate Authority to entertain and decide the appeal on merits
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