Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:31929-DB] (1 of 4) [CW-15536/2026] [2026:RJ-JP:31929-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15536/2026 CNR: RJHC020770742026 | URN: CW / 33077U / 2026 M/s Thok Bhav.com, D103B, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302016 Through Its Proprietor Mrs. Rashmi Maheshwari, W/o Mr. Abhishek Khatod, Aged About 33 Years, A- 65, Ashok Vihar, Chomu, Rajasthan-303702. ----Petitioner Versus 1.
State of Rajasthan, Through The Finance Secretary (Revenue), Government Secretariat, Jaipur-302005.
2.
The Chief Commissioner, Commerical Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Jaipur-302004.
3.
The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-H, Jaipur-I, Sambhagaya Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur-302004.
4.
Union of India, Through The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 5.
The Chief Commissioner, CGST Jaipur Zone, NCR Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur - 302005.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Ravi Gupta with Ms. Preeti Katta & Mr. Harsh Ladha For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) 13/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.
1.
Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of the impugned adjudication order dated 05.12.2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, whereby the total demand amounting to Rs.
7,14,803/- was confirmed against the petitioner. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Rectification Rejection Order dated 05.05.2026
[2026:RJ-JP:31929-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-15536/2026] passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-H, Jaipur-I, under Section 161 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, whereby the petitioner’s application for rectification was rejected on the ground of limitation, despite the petitioner having demonstrated that the actual excess ITC liability was only Rs. 1,90,318.78/-, which had already been discharged through Form GST DRC-03 dated 29.08.2025.
2.
Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that FORM GST DRC-01 dated 23.09.2025 was issued against the petitioner proposing tax of Rs.3,83,015/-, interest of Rs.2,70,860/- and penalty of Rs.48,652/-.
Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 3 passed the adjudication order dated 05.12.2025, confirming the aforesaid tax, penalty and interest. They submit that the order was uploaded on the GST portal under “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Notices and Orders” and no hard copy thereof was served upon the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner remained unaware of the said order.
2.1 Learned counsels further submit that on 16.03.2026, Respondent No.3 issued FORM GST DRC-13 under Section 79(1)(c) to ICICI Bank Limited, directing it to place a hold/lien on the petitioner’s bank account to the extent of Rs.7,14,803/-. The petitioner came to know of the recovery proceedings only in April-May 2026, when a transaction from his account failed and the Bank furnished a copy of the DRC-13. Upon examining the GST portal through newly engaged counsel, the petitioner learnt of the order dated 05.12.2025 for the first time. He thereafter filed an application dated 02.05.2026 under Section 161, pointing out through reconciliation of GSTR-2B and GSTR-3B that the actual ITC difference was Rs. 1,90,318.78, comprising CGST and SGST of Rs. 95,159.39 each, which had already been discharged through FORM GST DRC-03 dated 29.08.2025.
[2026:RJ-JP:31929-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-15536/2026] 2.2 Learned counsels lastly submit that the rectification application was rejected vide order dated 05.05.2026 on the ground of limitation and on the premise that the issues raised fell beyond the scope of Section 161, despite the application having been filed within six months of the order dated 05.12.2025. They submit that no notice fixing any date, time or venue of personal hearing was issued and no effective opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly challenges the orders dated 05.12.2025 and 05.05.2026.
3.
Heard and perused the case file.
4.
At the outset, learned counsels for the respondents object to the maintainability of the writ petition herein stating that the alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, has not been availed.
5.
Statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority is provided against the impugned order dated 16.01.2025 Section 107 reads as under:- “Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person.
x-x-x-x-x“ 6.
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to directly entertain the writ petition without the petitioner exhausting its alternate statutory remedy.
7.
The facts on record reveal that the instant writ petition was filed against the impugned adjudication Order on 06.08.2026, i.e., after a delay of 124 days beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. Having considered the reasons stated by learned counsels for the petitioner, we
[2026:RJ-JP:31929-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-15536/2026] are satisfied that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.
8.
Learned counsel 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 argues 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.
9.
In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits even if, the same were time barred, provided sufficient cause was shown.
10.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this court.
11.
Disposed of accordingly, with liberty as above.
12.
All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 3/Mohita 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