S.B. Polymers Industries vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, and may not have the power to condone delays beyond a certain point, the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, can condone such delays when sufficient cause is shown. The Court found the petitioner's reasons for delay to be beyond their control and that non-adjudication on merits would cause grave injury. Referencing a Division Bench judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders, which addressed issues of SCN service via the common portal and appeal limitation, the Court agreed with the principle that appeals dismissed on limitation grounds, where the underlying order might have been passed without proper notice or where delay was due to circumstances beyond control, should be restored. The Court condoned the 14-day delay (after considering the statutory relaxation under Section 107) and set aside the impugned appellate order. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the petitioner's appeal on merits without raising the issue of limitation. The petitioner was granted liberty to file the appeal afresh within 30 days of the order's upload.

Facts

The petitioner, S.B. Polymers Industries, filed a writ petition challenging an Order-in-Appeal dated 15.06.2026, which rejected their appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 22.12.2025. The Order-in-Original raised a GST demand of Rs. 1,92,571/- for FY 2021-22 due to excess input tax credit. The appeal against the Order-in-Original was filed on 05.05.2026, but the Appellate Authority dismissed it as time-barred, stating it lacked the power to condone delay. The petitioner claimed the delay was bona fide, attributing it to personal medical reasons (slip disc and vertigo) and stated they only became aware of the Order-in-Original when recovery proceedings were initiated. They had previously filed a reply to the Show Cause Notice despite their medical condition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Appellate Authority, caused by circumstances beyond the petitioner's control, should be condoned by this Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the Appellate Authority refused to condone it due to lack of power under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the delay was bona fide and not intentional, stemming from severe medical issues requiring hospitalization and bed rest. They contended that they had responded to the Show Cause Notice despite their condition and only learned of the Order-in-Original upon initiation of recovery. They relied on several Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court (M/s M R Traders, M/s Molana Construction Company, Man Singh Tanwar, RPC PSIPL JV) to support their claim that sufficient cause for delay was shown and the appeal should be considered on merits. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal was barred by limitation. They cited a judgment from the Allahabad High Court in M/S Bambino Agro Industries Ltd. which held that limitation could be extended under Article 226, but noted that an SLP against that judgment was pending.