M/S Royal Petro And Chemicals vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the circumstances leading to the delay in filing the appeal were beyond the petitioner's control. Non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Following the consistent view taken in previous Division Bench judgments of the same Court, the Court found that sufficient cause of delay had been shown. The Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. 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 ratio decidendi is that if a party demonstrates a bona fide delay caused by circumstances beyond their control, particularly non-communication of the order, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can direct the appellate authority to condone the delay and decide the appeal on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Royal Petro And Chemicals, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to entertain their appeal and condone the delay in filing it. The appeal was against an Order-in-Original dated 09.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Bhiwadi, raising a GST demand of Rs. 61,21,850/- for Financial Years 2018-19 due to alleged wrongful availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner claimed the delay occurred because the Order-in-Original and the Summary in FORM GST DRC-07 were not communicated via email, SMS, or physical service, and were only uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner only became aware of the order during recovery proceedings. The instant writ petition was filed on 21.07.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 09.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Bhiwadi, for Financial Years 2018-19, should be condoned on the grounds of non-communication of the order to the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and not intentional, occurring due to the non-communication of the Order-in-Original and the Summary in FORM GST DRC-07 through any mode of communication, including email, SMS, or physical service. They contended that the order was merely uploaded on the GST portal, and they remained unaware of its existence until recovery proceedings were initiated. They relied on several Division Bench judgments of the same court, including M/s M R Traders v. UOI, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Or, 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., to argue that sufficient cause for the delay had been shown. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents opposed the submission, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation.