Shri Ashok Kumar Bhati Son Of Atar Singh Bhati vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court acknowledged the respondents' objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. However, after considering the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay in filing the appeal, the Court was satisfied that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the petitioner's control. The Court noted that the writ petition was filed 27 days after the statutory period for filing an appeal had expired. Citing previous Division Bench judgments of the same Court, which allowed appeals to be entertained on merits even if time-barred upon showing sufficient cause, the Court directed the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner's appeal and adjudicate it on merits. This direction was made conditional upon the appeal being filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the court's website.

Facts

The petitioner, Shri Ashok Kumar Bhati, a partner of M/s Jai Bajrang Steel, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice dated 27.06.2025 and an Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST Alwar Commissionerate. The impugned order raised a GST demand of Rs. 30,48,74,806/- along with interest and penalty for the period September 2018 to December 2022, on account of alleged excess/wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner claimed that he could not file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed time because the seized records and relied-upon documents were not furnished despite repeated requests, and the Order-in-Original was only uploaded on the GST Portal, not effectively communicated. The writ petition was filed on 25.05.2026, after the appeal period had expired.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, is available? The respondents argued that the writ petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal. The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the non-furnishing of seized records and documents by the revenue authorities during adjudication and the ineffective communication of the Order-in-Original, which led to the appeal becoming time-barred. The petitioner relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court to argue that the appeal should be considered on merits after condoning the delay.