New Swan Autocomp Private Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order(Oral) 10/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.
The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2023 and the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2023 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Circle-B, Bhiwadi, whereby GST demand of Rs. 30,07,883/-, for Financial Year 2017-2018, was raised on the account of irregular availment of transitional credit by the petitioner. Alternatively, the petitioner seeks remand of the matter for fresh adjudication after affording the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply to the Show Cause
[2026:RJ-JP:31901-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-17050/2023] Notice and an opportunity of personal hearing. The appeal against the said order could not per force be filed before the Appellate Authority as the online status of the appeal would reveal that the same is time- barred. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed the instant writ petition on 30.09.2023. 2. The learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 23.02.2023 and the consequential order dated 28.04.2023 were uploaded on the GST portal under the tab “View Additional Notices and Orders” and not under the tab “View Notices and Orders”. It is submitted that the petitioner, being under the bona fide belief that statutory notices and orders would be available under the latter tab, remained unaware of the issuance of the Show Cause Notice as well as the passing of the impugned order.
1 Learned counsels for the petitioner further submit that the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid proceedings only on 08.09.2023, when the petitioner’s consultant, while filing the statutory returns, noticed the impugned Show Cause Notice and order on the GST portal. Prior to 08.09.2023, the petitioner had no knowledge of either the initiation of the proceedings or the demand confirmed pursuant to the impugned order, and therefore could not take steps to avail the statutory appellate remedy within the prescribed period.
2 Learned counsels for the petitioner also submit that, thereafter, the petitioner also came to know that the Department had initiated recovery of the demand from the petitioner’s customers by issuing notices directing them to deposit the amount on behalf of the petitioner. The entire demand of Rs. 30,07,883/- was subsequently recovered through Challan dated 15.09.2023, and the petitioner came to know of such recovery upon the said challan being uploaded on the GST portal.
[2026:RJ-JP:31901-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-17050/2023] It is submitted that, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period.
3 Hence, the instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner.
Heard and perused the case file.
At the outset, learned counsels for the respondents object to the maintainability of the writ petition herein stating that the alternative remedy as provided under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017, has not been availed.
Statutory remedy by way of an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 before the Appellate Authority is provided against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 28.04.2023 For ready reference, Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 reads as under:- “Section 107. Appeals to Appellate Authority.- (1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order passed under this Act or the State Goods and Services Tax Act or the Union Territory Goods and Services Tax Act by an adjudicating authority may appeal to such Appellate Authority as may be prescribed within three months from the date on which the said decision or order is communicated to such person." x-x-x-x-x
In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to directly entertain the writ petition without the petitioner exhausting its alternate statutory remedy.
The facts on record reveal that the instant writ petition was filed against the impugned Order-in-Original on 28.04.2023, i.e., after a delay of 35 days beyond the statutory period prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017. Having considered the reasons stated by learned counsels for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the delay occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner.
[2026:RJ-JP:31901-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-17050/2023]
Learned counsels for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors4 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors5 argue that sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control has been shown and thus appeal be directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay by this Court.
In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits even if, the same were time barred, provided sufficient cause was shown.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this court.
Disposed of accordingly, with liberty as above. All pending applications also stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 33/TUSHAR/AARZOO 1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 3 D.B. CWP 14658/2024 4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025 5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
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.