Rail Vikas Nigam Limited vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Rail Vikas Nigam Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated February 20, 2026, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Appeals), State Tax, Chhattisgarh. The appeal was rejected solely on the grounds of delay. The Appellate Authority held that the appeal was filed beyond the permissible period under Section 107 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and that the maximum delay condonable was one month, which was exceeded. The order dated August 30, 2024, was allegedly uploaded on the portal on the same day, making the appeal filed on May 6, 2025, hopelessly barred by limitation. The assessment order from the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Bilaspur Division, dated August 30, 2024, had assessed a liability of Rs. 17,67,79,848/-.

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority correctly applied Section 107 of the Act of 2017 in rejecting the appeal due to the statutory bar on condoning delays beyond one month, this Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone the delay. The Court found the petitioner's offer to deposit an additional 15% of the tax liability (excluding penalty and interest) to be reasonable, especially considering the principle of natural justice that no one should be denied a hearing when civil consequences arise. Therefore, the impugned order dated February 20, 2026, was quashed. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to hear the petitioner's appeal on merits, subject to the deposit of an additional 15% of the tax liability within 30 days from the receipt of the order, effectively condoning the delay. The issue of whether the original order was properly communicated under Section 169 was implicitly addressed by the Court's decision to condone the delay and allow a hearing on merits.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in rejecting the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground of limitation, considering the manner of communication of the original order under Section 169 of the Act of 2017? 2. Whether this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, can condone the delay in filing the appeal and direct the Appellate Authority to decide the matter on merits, subject to certain conditions? The petitioner argued that the order dated August 30, 2024, was not communicated in accordance with Section 169 of the Act of 2017, and therefore, the limitation period should not be reckoned from the date of its portal upload. They contended that an opportunity of hearing should have been provided before such an order was uploaded. The petitioner also offered to abide by any condition imposed by the Court, including depositing an additional 15% of the tax liability (Rs. 9,38,02,182/-) in addition to the 10% already deposited, if the appeal were to be heard on merits. The State argued that no statutory provision exists for extending the limitation period, and therefore, the Court cannot condone the delay, praying for the dismissal of the writ petition.