[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Cw / 16327U / 2026Rameshwari ... vs The Union Of India ... on 29 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20454-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8884/2026
Rameshwari Narpatram Bishnoi W/o Narpat Ram Bishnoi, Aged
About 32 Years, Proprietor Of Maruti Enterprise R/o Meerapura
Road, Laxmi Nagar, Bhinmal, Jalore, Rajasthan. 343029.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New
Delhi 110001.
2. The Commissioner State Tax, Office At Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jodhpur Rajasthan.
4. The Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Sanchore,
Ward-II, Headquarter Bhinmal, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Rewaria, through V.C. for
Mr. Paras Mal Chopra
For Respondent(s) : Mr. H.S. Chundawat for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order(Oral)
29/04/2026
Per: Arun Monga, J
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction
commanding respondent No.3 to condone the delay of 301 days in
filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024
(Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax,
Circle Sanchore, Ward-II, Headquarter Bhinmal, whereby order for
cancellation of GST registration issued against the petitioner with
retrospective effect from 22.07.2022. The appeal against the said
order was filed on 25.02.2026. However, the Appellate Authority
vide order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure-9) dismissed the appeal
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 12:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20454-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-8884/2026]
on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to
condone the delay in filing the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in
filing the appeal occurred due to unavoidable and bona fide
circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. It is contended
that the petitioner had relied upon the tax consultant entrusted
with handling GST compliances and related proceedings, and
owing to lack of proper communication regarding the cancellation
proceedings, the Petitioner remained unaware that the registration
had already been cancelled. It is further submitted that
immediately upon gaining knowledge of the same, the petitioner
took prompt steps to prefer the appeal. The delay is neither wilful,
deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond
the Petitioner's control.
2.1 Owing to these circumstances, learned counsel thus submits
that the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the
prescribed period. The delay is neither wilful, deliberate nor
intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the Petitioner's
control. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay in
filing the appeal be kindly condoned in the interest of 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 Molana
Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax
Department & Ors1, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner,
2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 12:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20454-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-8884/2026]
Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. 2 , RPC
PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors 3 and RPC PSIPL JV
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors4, 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.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the above
submission and contends that the assessment order has rightly
been passed, 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 Act, however,
considering the reasons owing to which the petitioner could not
file 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 in para 4 of preceding part of
instant order, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, issued
directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8. In the context of present case, where cancellation of GST
registration results in loss of livelihood, reference may also be had
to another judgment of this Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI5.
For ready reference, relevant portion thereof is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
2025 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 12:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20454-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-8884/2026]
"11.5. The distinction, therefore, is not one of sympathy or sufficiency
of cause, but of jurisdictional competence. While constitutional courts,
exercising plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, may in appropriate cases condone delay so as to prevent a
complete denial of remedy, such constitutional elasticity cannot be
transposed into the statutory framework governing the Appellate
Authority.
11.6. Thus, we are of the opinion that the statutory scheme under
Section 107 admits of no discretion with the appellate authority to
grant extension beyond the expressly prescribed period. The
application of the Limitation Act stands unequivocally excluded by
necessary implication. Accordinly, we hold that the Appellate
Authority does not possesses the unrestricted discretion under Section
5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the ceiling prescribed
in Section 107(4).
12. It is also pertinent to note that the CGST Act is not a statute
enacted solely for revenue collection. It represents a comprehensive
fiscal reform intended to consolidate multiple indirect taxes and, at the
same time, to facilitate trade, commerce, and business continuity. This
legislative intent is clearly discernible from the scheme of the Act,
particularly the provisions relating to revocation of cancellation of
registration under Section 30 and appellate remedies under Section
107.The emphasis of the statute is thus not merely punitive
compliance, but regulated facilitation of economic activity. Any
interpretation which renders statutory remedies illusory on hyper-
technical grounds would defeat the very purpose of the enactment.
13. Cancellation of GST registration or missed appellate deadlines
should not permanently debar a taxpayer from the GST framework,
especially where the taxpayer intends to comply by filing returns,
paying taxes, interest, and penalties, and rectifying defaults. In such
cases, denial of opportunity to an assessee undermines the inclusive
and facilitative objective of the GST regime. Non-restoration of GST
registration in such cases also directly impairs the assessee's ability to
conduct business, earn a livelihood and leads economic paralysis,
thus, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by imposing
disproportionate and unreasonable hardship."
9. 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 of 301 days (after granting
relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing of
the appeal by the petitioner.
10. Accordingly, the impugned appellate order dated 27.03.2026
is set aside. Delay of 301 days in filing of the appeal is condoned.
The Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the appeal of the
petitioner and adjudicate the appeal on merits.
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 12:35:57 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20454-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-8884/2026]
11. Stay petition and all pending application stands disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J (ARUN MONGA),J
Ashutosh-6
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 12:35:57 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
