M/S Apsara Metals vs. The Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, and lacks the power to condone delay, the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can intervene when non-adjudication on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. The Court respectfully agreed with the view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors. The Court found that the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay, which was beyond their control. Therefore, the delay of 75 days in filing the appeal before the appellate authority was condoned. The impugned appellate order was set aside, and the Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal and adjudicate it on merits without raising the issue of limitation. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the appeal afresh within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Apsara Metals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.05.2026 by the Appellate Authority-III, State Tax, which dismissed their appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 27.08.2025. The Order-in-Original, passed by the Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, raised a GST demand of Rs. 11,18,558/- for FY 2018-19 due to alleged wrongful availment of input tax credit. The petitioner's appeal was filed on 11.03.2026, approximately 75 days beyond the statutory period, and was dismissed for being time-barred as the Appellate Authority lacked the power to condone the delay. The petitioner cited personal medical issues and daughter's marriage arrangements as reasons for the delay, and claimed the Order-in-Original was passed without proper communication and a mandatory personal hearing. They only became aware of the order through recovery proceedings initiated by the department.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, can condone the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 of the Rajasthan Goods and Services Tax (RGST) Act, 2017, when the Appellate Authority lacks such power? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide and due to circumstances beyond their control, including serious medical issues and family commitments. They contended that the Order-in-Original was not properly communicated, and a mandatory personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the RGST Act was not provided. They relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court (M/s M R Traders v. UOI, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors., RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors) which directed appeals to be considered on merits after condoning delay. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that the appeal was rightly dismissed as it was barred by limitation. They cited a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., which held that limitation can be extended under Article 226, but noted that an SLP against this judgment was pending.