M/S Shri Vijay Laxmi Traders vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act is available, and the merits of the case were not to be interfered with in the previous similar writ petitions, the delay in filing the appeal in the present case deserved to be condoned. The Court reasoned that the delay was on account of the pendency of adjudication under Section 168A of the CGST Act. Therefore, the Court directed the petitioner to prefer the appeal within a period of one month from the date of the order. The appeal, once filed, shall be examined purely on merits without delving into the questions of limitation. A speaking order is to be passed by the concerned authority after giving an opportunity to both parties within three months thereafter. The validity of the impugned order with respect to aspects of Section 168A of the CGST Act would be governed by the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the case, deferring them to the appellate authority.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shri Vijay Laxmi Traders, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The petition concerns issues arising from an adjudication under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had already filed a reply to the show cause notice and adjudication had been completed. However, the petitioner had not filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act, citing the pendency of adjudication under Section 168A of the CGST Act as the reason for the delay. The High Court noted that a similar bunch of petitions, including Eagle Trans Shipping & Logistics India Private Limited vs Union of India & Ors., had been decided on 22.08.2025, where the Court had not interfered with the merits of the impugned orders due to the availability of statutory appeal but had left open the question of the validity of notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act for the Supreme Court's decision.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the impugned orders on merits, given the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act, and CGST Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the delay in filing the statutory appeal should be condoned, considering the pendency of adjudication under Section 168A of the CGST Act? (Question of mixed law and fact) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to the pendency of adjudication under Section 168A of the CGST Act. The petitioner sought condonation of delay and examination of the appeal on merits. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the Court's previous order in a similar bunch of petitions indicated that the merits of the case would not be interfered with due to the availability of statutory appeal, while leaving the validity of Section 168A notifications to be decided by the Supreme Court.