Sh. Hemant Jain vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner, considering the reasons for the delay were beyond his control. Following consistent views of the Court in previous judgments, the High Court allowed the writ petition. 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 instant order being uploaded. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Sh. Hemant Jain, proprietor of M/s Swastik Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of his appeal by the Appellate Authority. The original order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax, disallowed Input Tax Credit (ITC) amounting to Rs. 61,41,836/- for the Financial Year 2018-19, due to the petitioner availing credit from suppliers whose GST registrations were cancelled ab initio. The appeal against this order was filed on 30.01.2026, with a delay of 386 days from the original order dated 11.09.2024. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 27.03.2026, citing lack of power to condone such a significant delay. The petitioner's writ petition was filed on 15.04.2026.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period prescribed under Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, when sufficient cause is shown? 2. Whether the petitioner has demonstrated sufficient cause for the delay of 386 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 11.09.2024? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was not deliberate but due to circumstances beyond his control, including serious health issues that prevented him from attending to compliances. He also contended that his accountant, who handled GST compliances, left employment without notice, leading to the petitioner's unawareness of the order uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner believed no proceedings were pending after discontinuing business in 2020 and only became aware of the impugned order upon receiving a recovery notice. He relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court to support his claim for condonation of delay. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, contending that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation.