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

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. The Court found that the reasons for the delay, as presented by the petitioner, were beyond their control. Following a consistent view taken in previous Division Bench judgments of the same Court, the Court decided to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The reasoning was that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay due to circumstances beyond their control. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts, in writ jurisdiction, can condone delays in filing statutory appeals when sufficient cause is shown, especially when effective communication and opportunity of hearing were allegedly denied, to prevent grave prejudice to the assessee. The operative direction was for the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner's appeal and adjudicate it on merits, provided the appeal is filed within 30 days of the instant order's upload.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Royal Petro And Chemicals, seeks a direction to entertain its appeal and condone the delay in filing it against an Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Bhiwadi. This order raised a GST demand of Rs.75,38,940/- for Financial Years 2021-2022 due to excess Input Tax Credit, non-payment under Reverse Charge Mechanism, and discrepancies in returns. The petitioner claims the order was not effectively communicated, only uploaded on the GST portal, and that they were not granted a personal hearing. They believed no final order was passed until later, by which time the appeal filing window had closed, rendering it time-barred on the portal. The writ petition was filed on 21.07.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 26.12.2025 should be condoned, considering the petitioner's assertion of non-effective communication and lack of personal hearing, thereby constituting a sufficient cause under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and occurred due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the non-effective communication of the impugned order and the failure of the respondents to provide a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. 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., to support their contention that the appeal should be considered on merits after condoning the delay. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal is now barred by limitation.