M/S Rajasthan Mineral Traders vs. Union Of INDIA

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, non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner, considering the reasons for the delay were beyond their control. Following consistent views taken by the Court in cited judgments, the writ petition was allowed 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 order being uploaded on the Court's website. The Court also noted that the challenge to the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017, was not pressed by the petitioner and was left open to be adjudicated in appropriate proceedings in the future.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajasthan Mineral Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.08.2023 passed by the Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Enforcement Wing-C, Jaipur. This order raised a GST demand of Rs. 30,82,368/- for the financial years 2018-2019, concerning liability under the reverse charge mechanism on payments for dead rent, royalty, DMFT, and RSMET. The petitioner failed to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within the prescribed time, as the online status indicated the appeal was time-barred. The petitioner claims the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the proprietor's preoccupation with his daughter's marriage and subsequent unawareness of the assessment order until January, by which time the statutory period for filing an appeal, including condonation of delay under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, had expired. The writ petition was filed on 14.02.2024.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the Appellate Authority to entertain the petitioner's appeal and condone the delay in filing, considering the reasons provided by the petitioner for the delay, pursuant to Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was occasioned by circumstances wholly beyond their control, including the proprietor's preoccupation with his daughter's marriage and subsequent unawareness of the assessment order. They contended that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to negligence but arose from genuine hardship, making it practically impossible to seek legal assistance or initiate appellate proceedings. Refusal to condone the delay would result in grave injustice by allowing an ex-parte and non-speaking order to attain finality on technical grounds. The petitioner 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. 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.