M/S V.K. Distributors vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the circumstances presented by the petitioner, which led to the delay in filing the appeal, were beyond their control. The Court found that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Following a consistent view taken in previous judgments by the same 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 order being uploaded on the Court's website. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s V.k. Distributors, seeks a direction to entertain their appeal and condone the delay in filing it against an order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Circle-C, Jaipur-I. This order raised a GST demand of Rs.9,80,226/- for Financial Year 2019-2020 due to alleged wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner claims they were unaware of the order as it was not served on them, and their registered email ID belonged to their Tax Consultant. The department subsequently recovered the entire demand of ₹1,18,213/- by debiting the petitioner's Electronic Credit Ledger. The petitioner filed this writ petition on 15.07.2026 after learning about the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 29.08.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Circle-C, Jaipur-I, should be condoned on the grounds of sufficient cause, as contemplated under the relevant provisions of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and solely due to circumstances beyond their control, specifically their lack of knowledge of the impugned order. They contended that the order was never served upon them, and they only became aware of it after a telephonic intimation from the respondent department. 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 claim that sufficient cause for delay had been shown. Respondents' Contention: The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and that the appeal was now barred by limitation. They did not cite any specific provisions or precedents in their opposition.