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

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 provided by the petitioner for the delay were beyond their control. Non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Following the consistent view taken by this Court in the cited judgments, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority is 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 issue of the validity of the original order passed under Section 74(9) was not expressly decided, as the focus was on condoning the delay to allow for an appeal on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brijwasi Stone Grit Udyog, seeks a direction to condone the delay and allow the filing of an appeal against an order dated 24.10.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Bharatpur. This order raised a GST demand of Rs. 15,85,734/- for the Financial Year 2020-21 due to 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 a former consultant, leaving the petitioner unaware of the proceedings. The petitioner only learned of the order on 04.09.2025 when their bank account was attached, prompting this writ petition filed on 25.11.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 24.10.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Bharatpur, under Section 74(9) of the RGST Act, 2017, considering the alleged non-service of the order and the subsequent attachment of the bank account. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contends that the delay was solely due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the non-service of the impugned ex parte order. They argue that they remained unaware of the adjudication proceedings and the order until their bank account was attached on 04.09.2025. They rely 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 plea for condonation of delay and adjudication on merits. Respondents' arguments: The respondents oppose the submission, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal is now barred by limitation.