M/S Dev Consortium vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation provisions 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, given the circumstances beyond their control that led to the delay. Following consistent views taken by the Court in previously cited judgments, the Court decided to allow the writ petition. The delay of 190 days in filing the appeal was condoned, considering the relaxation of 120 days already available under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The impugned appellate order dated May 11, 2026, was set aside. 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. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dev Consortium, sought a direction from the Rajasthan High Court to condone a delay of 190 days in filing an appeal against an Order-in-Original dated December 13, 2023. This order, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Jaipur, raised a GST demand of Rs. 24,46,162.23 for the period July 2017-March 2018, citing excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) availment. The appeal was filed on October 18, 2024. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on May 11, 2026, citing a lack of power to condone the delay. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on July 9, 2026, challenging this dismissal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 190 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated December 13, 2023, can be condoned by the High Court under its writ jurisdiction, considering the petitioner's plea of "sufficient cause" as per Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the delay was not deliberate but caused by circumstances beyond their control, specifically the prolonged illness of the petitioner's wife, diagnosed with chronic kidney disease, which required constant medical attention and prevented the petitioner from devoting adequate time to business and statutory compliances. The petitioner also cited a lack of technical proficiency and reliance on a semi-qualified employee. They relied on several Division Bench judgments of the same 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 argue that the appeal should be considered on merits. The respondents contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation.