M/S. Driti Solutions vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/20513/2025HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02109060202508 January 2026Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SANGEETA SHARMA2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Driti Solutions, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court. The respondents, including the Union of India and the State of Rajasthan, accepted notice. Both parties agreed that the issue raised in the present petition had already been adjudicated by the same Court in the case of M/s Munch Box Vs. Union of India & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2819/2025. The judgment in M/s Munch Box dealt with appeals filed against orders passed under Sections 73 or 74 of the GST Act and the condonation of delay in filing such appeals, particularly when a rectification application was pending.

Held

The Court held that after an original order under Section 73 or 74 of the Act, an appeal lies under Section 107, which has a three-month period for filing, with a one-month delay condonation. The Appellate Authority has no further power to condone delay, as settled by the Supreme Court in Technimont Private Limited. However, Section 161 of the Act allows for rectification applications. The Court clarified that the rectification order does not merge with the original order, and an appeal against the original order can still be filed. The delay in filing an appeal can be considered a genuine reason for waiting for a rectification order. Consequently, the Court condoned the delay in the present case and directed the Appellate Authority to examine the original order and the rectification application on merits, without dwelling on the issue of limitation. The order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed, directing the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal within four months on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing to both parties.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority has the power to further condone the delay in filing an appeal beyond the period stipulated in Section 107 of the CGST Act, considering the Supreme Court's decision in Technimont Private Limited vs State of Punjab and Ors. (2021) 12 SCC 477? 2. When does the limitation for filing an appeal start if a rectification application has been passed, and does the rectification order merge with the original order? Petitioner's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments made by the petitioner in this specific case. However, it relies on the precedent set in M/s Munch Box, which likely involved arguments regarding the Appellate Authority's powers and the impact of rectification applications on appeal limitations. Revenue/State's Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, agreed that the issue was already adjudicated in M/s Munch Box. This implies they did not contest the application of the precedent to the present case.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 74, Section 107, Section 161

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:560-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20513/2025 M/s. Driti Solutions, Lower Ground, Shop No.28, Electronic Mangalam Mall, Gopalpura Bye Pass, Near Riddhi Siddhi, Jaipur 302 015 Through Its Partner Shri Nayan Jain, Son Of Shri Surya Prakash Jain, Aged 39 Years, Resident Of 51/52, Radha Nikunj - C, Iskon Road, Jaipur 302020. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, No.137, North Block, New Delhi-110001. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Services Tax Department, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur. 4. The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur-Iii, Jaipur. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle - F, Zone - Iii, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alkesh Sharma with Ms. Yashasvi Sharma, Mr. Ayush Sharma & Mr. Sudesh Godhika For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG assisted by Ms. Harshita Verma & Mr. Rohan Mittal Dr. Shyam Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

Order 08/01/2026

Issue notice to the respondents.

Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 3. Ms. Mahi Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. [2026:RJ-JP:560-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-20513/2025]

Both the counsel are ad idem that the issue raised in the present petition stands already adjudicated by this Court in the case of M/s Munch Box Vs. Union of India & Ors. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2819/2025 wherein, we held as under:

After an original order has been passed either under Section 73 or Section 74 of the Act, an appeal would lie to be under Section 107 of the Act, which has to be filed within period of three months', delay of one month can be condoned. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Appellate Authority would have no power to further condone the delay as settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in RAHUL MIRKHANI/40

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.