Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:35036-DB] (1 of 5) [CW-17381/2026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17381/2026 CNR: RJHC020835592026 | URN: CW / 36389U / 2026 M/s. Baba Metals, 274-275, Sanjay Market, Ghat Gate, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302003 Through Its Proprietor Shri Mahendra Kumar Khandelwal Son Of Shri Radhe Shyam Khandelwal ----Petitioner Versus 1.
The Deputy Commissioner, Sgst, Circle-A, Jaipur - Ii, Regional Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur - 302004, Rajasthan.
2.
The Appellate Authority- First, Sgst, Jaipur, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001.
3.
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Finance Secretary (Revenue), Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
4.
The Union Of India, Through Its Revenue Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Room No.
46, North Block, New Delhi - 110001.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Vaibhav Gogra with Mr. Aman Gupta for Mr. Vikram Gogra For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG & Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 01/09/2026 1.
The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2026 passed by the Appellate
[2026:RJ-JP:35036-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-17381/2026] Authority- First, SGST, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 23.04.2025 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 23.04.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, SGST, Circle-A, Jaipur-II whereby GST demand of Rs. 2,49,32,480/- for Financial Year 2021-22, was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit due to non-payment of tax along with undisclosed transactions by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 30.09.2025, i.e., after a delay of 40 days. However, the Appellate Authority vide Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2026 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 21.08.2026.
2.
Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. They submit that before passing of the Order-in-Original alleging the tax demand, a Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2024 was also issued to the petitioner, however, the petitioner could not file its reply to the said Show Cause Notice as the same was not duly served upon the petitioner. Instead of being uploaded under the designated and statutorily recognised tab, namely, ‘Notices and Orders’, on the common GST portal, where such notices are required to be hosted, the said notice was erroneously uploaded under the tab ‘Additional Notices and Orders’, which was not the designated tab for service of such notice and therefore, the petitioner had no effective knowledge thereof. The non-filing of the reply was neither deliberate nor wilful, but was due to procedural lapses on the part of the Department.
[2026:RJ-JP:35036-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-17381/2026] 2.1 Learned counsels for the petitioner further submit the petitioner was wholly unaware of the Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.2024 and the demand raised against it, vide the Order-in-Original dated 23.04.2025. They submit that the the petitioner could not prefer the appeal within prescribed period as the petitioner acquired the knowledge of the said Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original only in September, 2025, whereafter the petitioner approached his counsel and filed the appeal against the said Order-in-Original on 30.09.2025.
However, the said appeal has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 07.08.2026 solely on the grounds of limitation under section 107(4) of the GST Act, 2017 without looking into the merits of the case.
2.2 Hence, the present writ petition.
3.
In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
4.
Learned counsels for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors4 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors5 argue that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.
1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 3 D.B. CWP 14658/2024 4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025 5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
[2026:RJ-JP:35036-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-17381/2026] 5.
Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contend that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation.
6.
Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond its control, non-adjudication of appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
7.
In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8.
Aside above, reference may also be had to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.6 in CWP No. 27139/2025, wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken.
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original,
the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Depart ment shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be 6 2026:PHHC099329:DB
[2026:RJ-JP:35036-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-17381/2026] set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.
(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and ap peal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.” 9.
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view.
Accordingly, we see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner herein.
10.
In the premise, following the consistent view as already taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.
11.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
12.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 8/AARZOO/TUSHAR