M/S. Bohra Enterprises vs. The Joint Commissioner, SGST

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the reasons for the delay, being beyond the petitioner's control, warranted condonation to avoid grave injury and prejudice. Following consistent views from previous Division Bench judgments of the same Court, the present writ petition was allowed to the extent of condoning the delay of 78 days. The Court noted that a relaxation of 120 days was granted under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The impugned appellate order dated 10.06.2026 was set aside. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal and adjudicate it on merits, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the Court's website. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Bohra Enterprises, seeks a direction to condone a delay of 78 days in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024. This order, passed by the Joint Commissioner, SGST, Circle Dausa, raised a GST demand of Rs.16,58,960/- for FY 2018-19 due to alleged discrepancies between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A figures. The appeal was filed on 13.11.2024. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 10.06.2026, citing lack of power to condone the delay. The petitioner argues the delay was bona fide, occurring because they were unaware of the order until recovery was effected from their Electronic Credit Ledger on 21.08.2024. They contend the GST portal was managed by their Chartered Accountant, and they were not informed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay of 78 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 29.04.2024, considering the circumstances beyond their control, as contemplated under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and occasioned by a lack of knowledge of the impugned order, as they were only informed of it when recovery was made from their Electronic Credit Ledger. They contended that mere uploading of the order on the GST portal does not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the GST Act, and no other mode of service was established. They relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, including M/s M R Traders v. UOI, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors., Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. The respondents contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal is now barred by limitation.