M/S Uttam Prakash vs. The Union Of INDIA
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Uttam Prakash, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of being filed beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the original order dated 30.08.2024 was uploaded on the common portal without proper communication via email or other means as stipulated under Section 169 of the Act. The petitioner argued for an opportunity to contest the original order. The respondent revenue authorities submitted that the petitioner, being a regular filer of returns, should have been aware of the order through the common portal.
Held
The Court acknowledged that the Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone delay beyond the period provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act. However, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Tecnimont Private Limited vs. State of Punjab & Ors., the Court held that its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are wide enough to condone delay in appropriate cases, especially when justice demands it and the petitioner cannot be left remediless. The Court found that the order was not properly communicated to the petitioner, and therefore, the delay in filing the appeal was condoned. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal again before the Appellate Authority, it shall be revived and heard on merits. The Appellate Authority was instructed to decide the appeal expeditiously in accordance with the law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties and upon pre-deposit. The Court expressly upheld the principle that the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay is limited by Section 107, but exercised its own constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of delay, when the original order was allegedly not properly communicated to the petitioner as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017? 2. Whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, notwithstanding the limitations prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, in light of the principles laid down in Tecnimont Private Limited vs. State of Punjab and Others? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the original order was not communicated effectively, leading to the delay in filing the appeal. They contended that a chance must be given to contest the order on merits. They relied on the principle that no person should be left remediless. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner, by regularly filing returns, must have had knowledge of the original order through the common portal.
Sections Cited
Section 107, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 24/03/2026
The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that the appeal was being filed after a delay of beyond the limitation provided under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act').
[2026:RJ-JP:12422-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-20749/2025]
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 30.08.2024 was uploaded on the common portal without it being communicated to the petitioner via E-mail address or through phone number or through the other provisions as provided under Section 169 of the Act.
Learned counsel submits that a chance must be given to the petitioner to contest the order passed by the respondent on the day itself on which the petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as the petitioner has been regularly filing its returns it cannot be said that they did not have the knowledge of original order having been passed at least on the common portal.
We find that in judgment passed by this Court in the case of Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15466/2025 decided on 06.11.2025. The Court held as under :- "
In view of the above, it is apparent that the maximum condonation after three months is one month so far as the powers of the Tribunal are concerned. However, in a subsequent judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of “Tecnimont Private Limited (formerly known as Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) Vs. State of Punjab and Others”, (2021) 12 SCC 477, the Supreme Court held that while the concerned Tribunal may not have the powers to extend the period of limitations, the powers contained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be curtailed so as to condone the delay in appropriate cases considering the facts and circumstances therein.
In “Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd.” (supra), the judgment passed in
[2026:RJ-JP:12422-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-20749/2025] “Tecnimont Private Limited” (supra) has not been noticed.
It is settled law that no person can be left remediless if the appeal is barred by limitation. This Court would have to examine the case on merits. However, the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide enough and cannot be fettered by the provisions of law. If in a particular case, we find that in the interest of justice, the delay should be condoned, also considering the facts that the knowledge of the order cannot be said to have been gained especially when the e-mail itself dost not reflect the detailed order and the portal does not contain the detailed order, it cannot be assumed that the petitioner was having full knowledge of the order passed by the respondents.
We also noticed that when an appeal has been preferred against the order passed relating to the years 2019-2020, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have not availed the remedy of an appeal in relation to the subsequent years had there been knowledge of the passing order. We, therefore, are satisfied that the delay can be condoned in respect to the facts of the present case and allow the petitioner to file the appeal relating to the years 2020-2021, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. If such an appeal is preferred within a period of 15 days henceforth, the Appellate Authority shall examine the same on merits and decide it expeditiously preferably within a period of three months thereto.
It goes without saying that the appeal shall be decided by a speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Pre-deposit has to be of course made for the purpose.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
All pending applications shall also stand disposed of."
Considering the above law, we although uphold the order passed by the Appellate Authority as the power is not available to
[2026:RJ-JP:12422-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-20749/2025] condone the delay beyond the period provided under Section 107 of the Act. At the same time, considering that the petitioner cannot be left remediless and that the order was not properly communicated to the petitioner. We condone the delay in filing of the appeal by exercising our power as allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tecnimont Private Limited (Formerly Known As Tecnimont ICB Private Limited) vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 477. 7. In view thereto, we direct that if an appeal is again preferred before the Appellate Authority, the appeal shall be revived and heard on merits by the Appellate Authority. The decision shall be taken on the appeal in accordance with law.
The present writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Himanshu Soni/126
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.