[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Ramdev Builders vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 16 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4504/2026
M/s Ramdev Builders, 83, Artizen Colony, Masuriya, Pal Road,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan Through Its Authorized Partner Smt Bebi
Prajapat W/o Late Shri Satya Narayan Prajapat Aged About
50Years R/o 798 Samanvay Nagar Pal Road Nandnawan Jodhpur
Raj 342008
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Union Of India, Ministry Of Finance, Dept Of Revenue,
Govt Of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi
3. Goods And Services Tax Council, 5Th Floor Tower Ii,
Jeevan Bharti Building, Janpath Rd, Connaught Place,
Delhi
4. The Chief Commissioner (Sgst), Commercial Tax Dept,
Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur
5. The Deputy Commissioner, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sharad Kothari
Mr. Pranjul Mehta
Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bishnoi
Mr. Kalpit Shishodia
Mr. Chirag Soni
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshvardhan Singh Chundawat
for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
Mr. Rishabh Dadhich and
Mr. Jitesh Kumar Suthar for Mr.
Rajvendra Saraswat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
16/04/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction
commanding respondents to entertain the appeal and also
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:20:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-4504/2026]
condone the delay and allow the filing of appeal against the
impugned orders dated 31.10.2023 (Financial Years 2017-2018
and 2019-2020) as well as 12.03.2024 (Financial Year 2018-2019)
passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-B, Jodhpur-
II, whereby GST demand of Rs.11,30,614/- for Financial Year
2017-18, Rs.20,09,000/- for Financial Year 2018-2019 and
Rs.30,26,908/- for Financial Year 2019-2020 was raised on the
account of excess availment and utilization of Input Tax Credit by
the petitioner. Pursunt thereto an intimation gor attachment dated
25.11.2025 was also issued. The appeal against the said orders
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. The petitioner is thus left remediless. Hence, the
petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, has preferred
this instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in
filing the present appeal was occasioned by circumstances wholly
beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner was prevented
from availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed period
due to exceptional and unavoidable circumstances, as the family
suffered five successive bereavements between 2019 and January
2025, including the demise of the managing partner, his father,
and three real brothers. These tragic events caused severe mental
distress, emotional dislocation, and financial instability, thereby
disrupting the normal functioning and decision-making capacity of
the petitioner.
2.1. That the aforesaid sequence of continuous losses within the
immediate family cannot be equated with an ordinary delay. The
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:20:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-4504/2026]
cumulative effect of prolonged grief, depression, familial
obligations, and financial hardship rendered the petitioner
incapable of pursuing legal remedies within time.
2.2. That the delay is neither intentional nor attributable to
negligence, but arose from genuine hardship and incapacity, which
made it practically impossible to seek legal assistance, arrange the
statutory pre-deposit, or initiate appellate proceedings. Refusal to
condone the delay would result in grave injustice by allowing an
ex-parte and non-speaking order to attain finality on mere
technical grounds, defeating the cause of substantial justice.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned
counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4. Learned Counsel 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 argues
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.
1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:20:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-4504/2026]
5. Learned counsels for the respondents oppose the above
submission and contends that the impugned order has rightly
been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation.
6. Having heard, as above, it transpires that while it is true that
the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of
limitation provided under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act,
2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the
petitioner could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time,
being beyond its control, non-adjudication of appeal on merits
would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.
7. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the
writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on
merits.
8. In the premise, following the consistent view as already
taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the
extent of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the
petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to now
entertain the appeal of the petitioner and adjudicate the same on
merits.
10. Before parting, we may also hasten to add that as regards
challenge to the validity of Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, 2017
and in view of the aforesaid order passed by this Court, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the said challenge is not
being pressed in the present matter, with liberty to raise and
pursue the same in appropriate proceedings. The issue qua the
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:20:32 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17557-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-4504/2026]
vires of the same is thus left open to be adjudicated in appropriate
proceedings in future.
11. Stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, stand(s)
disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
4-raksha/-
(Uploaded on 21/04/2026 at 12:20:32 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
