M/S Shri Om Casting vs. Assistant Commissioner

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal were beyond the petitioner's control. Non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner. Following consistent views taken by this Court in cited judgments, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay of 325 days in filing the appeal. The impugned appellate order dated 24.07.2025 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 uploading of the instant order. The Court noted that the delay of 325 days was condoned after granting a relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of the CGST Act.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Om Casting, filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of their appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal was dismissed on 24.07.2025 due to a delay of 325 days in filing it against an Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024. This original order, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax Department, raised a GST demand of Rs. 7,88,852/- for Financial Year 2018-19, alleging excess availment of Input Tax Credit. The petitioner claimed the delay was bona fide, attributing it to the non-communication of the original order through direct modes or registered email, and that they only became aware of it upon receiving a recovery notice on 15.07.2025. The appeal was filed on 19.07.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay of 325 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax Department, should be condoned, considering the petitioner's contention that the order was not properly communicated and the delay was bona fide and beyond their control, thereby invoking the principles of sufficient cause under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and not intentional. They contended that the impugned order was not communicated directly, nor through registered email or other prescribed modes, but was merely uploaded on the GST portal. They became aware of the order only upon receiving a recovery notice on 15.07.2025, after which the appeal was filed promptly. 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., and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors, to argue that sufficient cause for the delay had been shown and the appeal should be considered on merits. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents opposed the petitioner's submission, contending that the impugned appellate order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation.