M/S Deem Construction Company Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court held that while the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limitation periods under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, considering the reasons for the delay, which were beyond the petitioner's control, non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice. The Court agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors., which stated that service of SCN cannot be deemed sufficient merely by uploading on the portal unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. The Court found that the petitioner's claim of not knowing about the Order-in-Original until recovery proceedings were initiated lends credence to their stand that the order might have been placed in the wrong tab. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and adjudicate it on merits, provided it is filed within 30 days of the order being uploaded.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Deem Construction Company Private Limited, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an Order-in-Appeal dated 06.03.2026, which rejected their appeal against an Order-in-Original dated 03.04.2024. The Order-in-Original raised a GST demand of Rs. 66,93,594/- for Financial Year 2018-19 due to declared tax liability discrepancies. The petitioner's appeal against the Order-in-Original was filed on 14.08.2025, with a delay of 378 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, stating it lacked the power to condone the delay. The petitioner contended that the delay was bona fide, as they were unaware of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 21.12.2023 and the Order-in-Original because the SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the wrong tab. They only became aware of recovery proceedings on 23.07.2025.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original, considering the alleged non-service of the Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original, turning on Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Arguments: The delay was bona fide and beyond the petitioner's control. The Show Cause Notice was not effectively served as it was uploaded under the incorrect tab on the GST portal, leading to the petitioner's lack of knowledge. Consequently, the petitioner could not file the appeal within the prescribed period. They relied on various Division Bench judgments of the Rajasthan High Court, including M/s M R Traders v. UOI and M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors., arguing that the appeal should be considered on merits after condoning the delay. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that the impugned order was rightly passed and the appeal is now barred by limitation.