M/S Sitaram Chaturbhuj Garg vs. The Union Of INDIA

/6470/2024HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02032891202408 May 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,BIPIN GUPTA3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sitaram Chaturbhuj Garg, filed an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioner contended that there was no delay in filing the appeal, as the period of three months provided for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Act had not expired. Alternatively, if the period was counted from the date of uploading of the order, the delay of 4 days would stand condoned. The order under challenge was passed by the Appellate Authority on 05.02.2024. The respondents are the Union of India and various authorities under the Central Goods and Services Tax and Central Excise department, as well as the State of Rajasthan.

Held

The High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court referred to Rule 108 of the CGST Act, which deals with the powers of the Revisional Authority, and implicitly considered the provisions related to appeals and limitation. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the appeal was either within time or that the delay should be condoned. Consequently, the Court set aside the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority was directed to decide the appeal on its merits, treating it as being within the period of limitation. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act was within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the date of uploading of the order? 2. Whether the delay of 4 days in filing the appeal, if any, should be condoned by the Appellate Authority? The petitioner argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal, as the period of three months under Section 107 of the CGST Act had not expired. They further contended that even if there was a slight delay of 4 days, it should be condoned, especially if the period is calculated from the date of uploading of the order. The respondents' arguments are not explicitly recorded in the provided text.

Sections Cited

Section 107, Rule 108

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:19557-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6470/2024 M/s Sitaram Chaturbhuj Garg, Khatoli , Tehsil-Pipalada, Kota Rajasthan Through Its Proprietor Shri Ramesh Chand Garg S/o Shri Laddu Khatoli Tehsil Pipalada Kota Rajasthanlal Garg , Aged 64 Years(Approx). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, Through Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise , New Central Revenue Building, Statute Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj) 302005. 2. The Commissioner, Commissionerate Of Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, 142-B, Sector-11, Hiran Magri, Udaipur (Raj). 3. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise Dvision H, Central Revenue Building , C.a.d. Circle, Dadabari Road, Kota (Raj). 324005. 4. Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods And Service Tax And Central Excise, G-1-5, New Jodhpur Industrial Area, Basni, Jodhpur (Raj). 5. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Near High Court Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma and Mr. Shivam Sharma Ms. Jyoti Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Order 08/05/2026

[2026:RJ-JP:19557-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-6470/2024]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no delay in filing the appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, as the delay of 4 days beyond the period of three months is provided under Section 107 of the Act. He further submits that if the period is counted from the date of uploading of the order, the period of 4 days would also stand condoned.

It would be apposite to quote the provisions of Rule 108 of the CGST Act, which provides as under:- “108. Powers of Revisional Authority.— (1) Subject to the provisions of section 121 and any rules made thereunder, the Revisional Authority may, on his own motion, or upon information received by him or on request from the Commissioner of State tax, or the Commissioner of Union territory tax, call for and examine the record of any proceedings, and if he considers that any decision or order passed under this Act or under the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by any officer subordinate to him is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue and is illegal or improper or has not taken into account certain material facts, whether available at the time of issuance of the said order or not or in consequence of an observation by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, he may, if necessary, stay the operation of such decision or order for such period as he deems fit and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of being heard and after making such further inquiry as may be necessary, pass such order, as he thinks just and proper, including enhancing or modifying or annulling the said decision or order. (2) The Revisional Authority shall not exercise any power under sub-section (1), if— (a) the order has been subject to an appeal under section 107 or section 112 or section 117 or section 118;or (b) the period specified under sub-section (2) of section 107 has not yet expired or more than three years have expired after the passing of the decision or order sought to be revised; or (c) the order has already been taken for revision under this section at an earlier stage; or (d) the order has been passed in exercise of the powers under sub-section (1): Provided that the Revisional Authority may pass an order under sub-section (1) on any point which has not been raised and decided in an appeal referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (2), before the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the order in such appeal or before the expiry of a period of three years referred to in clause (b) of that subsection, whichever is later.

[2026:RJ-JP:19557-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-6470/2024] (3) Every order passed in revision under sub-section (1) shall, subject to the provisions of section 113 or section 117 or section 118, be final and binding on the parties. (4) If the said decision or order involves an issue on which the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court has given its decision in some other proceedings and an appeal to the High Court or the Supreme Court against such decision of the Appellate Tribunal or the High Court is pending, the period spent between the date of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal and the date of the decision of the High Court or the date of the decision of the High Court and the date of the decision of the Supreme Court shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) where proceedings for revision have been initiated by way of issue of a notice under this section. (5) Where the issuance of an order under sub-section (1) is stayed by the order of a court or Appellate Tribunal, the period of such stay shall be excluded in computing the period of limitation referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2). (6) For the purposes of this section, the term,–– (i) ―record shall include all records relating to any ‖ proceedings under this Act available at the time of examination by the Revisional Authority; (ii) ―decision shall include intimation given by any officer ‖ lower in rank than the Revisional Authority.”

Keeping in view the aforesaid provisions, we allow this writ petition and set aside the order 05.02.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority and direct the Appellate Authority to decide

the appeal on merits, treating it to be within time.

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending application, if any, also stand disposed of. (BIPIN GUPTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ ANIL SHARMA/64

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.