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

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, 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 consistent views taken by the Court in previously cited judgments, the Court decided to condone the delay of 277 days. The Court directed the Appellate Authority 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 explicitly granted relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act as part of the condonation.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Brijwasi Stone Grit Udyog, seeks a direction to condone a delay of 277 days in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 24.10.2024. This order, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-A, Bharatpur, raised a GST demand of Rs. 16,89,734/- for Financial Year 2021-22 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 ex parte order, passed under Section 74(9) of the RGST Act, 2017, was never physically served. Although uploaded on the GST portal, the petitioner was unaware of it as the contact details on the portal belonged to their former consultant. 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 of 277 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 24.10.2024, considering the alleged non-service of the order and lack of knowledge, thereby warranting condonation of delay under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically the non-service of the impugned ex parte order passed under Section 74(9) of the RGST Act, 2017. They contended that they remained unaware of the order until their bank account was attached on 04.09.2025, and this lack of knowledge was not due to negligence. 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 plea for condonation and adjudication on merits. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and that the appeal is now barred by limitation.