Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:31688-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9729/2026 CNR: RJHC020508792026 | URN: CW / 21713U / 2026 Shri Rahul Sapra S/o Raj Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of C-703, Sudershan Park, Ramesh Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi- 110012, Partner Of M/s Jai Bajrang Steel, Having Its Registered Office At E-41 B, Riico Industrial Area, Khushkhera, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan, 301707.
----Petitioner Versus 1.
Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001 2.
The Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Commissionerate Alwar, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan)-301001 3.
The
Additional
Commissioner,
Cgst
Alwar Commissionerate, Adjudication Branch, A Block, Surya Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan)-301001.
4.
The Additional Director General, , Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence (Dggi), Jaipur Zonal Unit, C-62, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302001.
5.
The Senior Intelligence Officer, Group-J/a, Directorate General Of Gst Intelligence, Jaipur Zonal Unit, C-62, Sarojini Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302001 6.
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Finance (Tax Division), Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Yashvardhan Tolani for Mr. Shubham Sharma For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma Mr. Shivam Sharma Mr. Ankit Sareen
[2026:RJ-JP:31688-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-9729/2026] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Judgment 12/08/2026 1.
The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2025 and the consequent Order-in-Original, dated 29.12.2025 (Tax Period- September 2018 to December 2022) passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Alwar Commissionerate, Adjudication Branch, Alwar, whereby GST demand of Rs. 30,48,74,806/-, was raised on the account of irregular availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said orders could not per force be filed before the Appellate Authority as the online status of the appeal would reveal that the same is time-barred. The petitioner is thus left remediless.
Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 22.05.2026.
2.
Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is a partner of M/s Jai Bajrang Steel and that the respondents have sought to fasten personal liability and impose severe penalties upon him in his capacity as a partner of M/s Jai Bajrang Steel, despite the absence of any cogent material establishing fraud or any wrongful intent attributable to the petitioner. They submit that the show cause notice dated 27.06.2025 was issued against the petitioner alleging irregular availment and utilization of ITC on the basis of fake invoices, i.e., without receipt of actual supply of goods by the firm. They further submit that the petitioner was inducted as a partner of the said firm only on 08.02.2026, whereas the allegations pertain to a period prior to his joining the firm.
[2026:RJ-JP:31688-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-9729/2026] 2.1 Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that thereafter, the Additional Commissioner, CGST Alwar passed the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025, confirming the proceedings and imposing the liabilities upon the petitioner. They submit that the petitioner could not file the statutory appeal within the prescribed period as the impugned Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 was never effectively communicated to the petitioner and was merely uploaded on the GST Portal. The petitioner acquired knowledge of the impugned order only subsequently in the year 2026, whereafter, immediate steps were taken to challenge the same. However, by then, the appeal had become time-barred on the GST Portal.
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-in-Original dated 29.12.2025. For ready reference, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 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
[2026:RJ-JP:31688-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-9729/2026] 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 Order-in-Original on 22.05.2026. However, having considered the reasons stated by learned counsels for the petitioner, we 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.
Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above submissions. They contend that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal was rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.
10.
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, 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:31688-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-9729/2026] 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.
11.
In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits. In light thereof, the delay in filing the proposed appeal against the impugned Order-in-Original is condoned.
12.
In light thereof, 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.
13.
Disposed of accordingly, with liberty as above. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 11/Aman/Shivam