M/S Brijwasi Stone Grit Udyog vs. The Joint Commissioner

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 reasons for the petitioner's inability to submit its appeal within the stipulated time were beyond its control. Non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Following the consistent view taken in various Division Bench judgments of the Court, 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 Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brijwasi Stone Grit Udyog, seeks a direction to entertain its appeal and condone the delay in filing it against an order dated 24.10.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-A, Bharatpur. This order raised a GST demand of Rs.16,89,734 for Financial Year 2020-21 on account of short payment of GST on Royalty and DMFT. The petitioner claims the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period because the impugned ex parte order, passed under Section 74(9) of the RGST Act, 2017, was never physically served. Although uploaded on the GST portal, the contact details therein belonged to the petitioner's former consultant, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the proceedings. The petitioner only learned of the order on 04.09.2025 when its bank account was attached, prompting this writ petition filed on 25.11.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 24.10.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-A, Bharatpur, should be condoned due to sufficient cause, as contemplated under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control, specifically the non-service of the impugned ex parte order. The order was uploaded on the GST portal, but physical service was not effected, and the contact details on the portal were outdated. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the adjudication and the passing of the order until its bank account was attached on 04.09.2025. 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, to support its claim of sufficient cause. Respondents' contention: The respondents contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and that the appeal is now barred by limitation.