CW/2592/2024 of M/S RAJASTHAN MINERAL TRADERS Vs UNION OF INDIA on 23 July 2026

1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax, Statue Circle, C Scheme, Jaipur.

3. The Chief Commissioner, State Goods And Service Tax, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur.

4. Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Enforcement Wing-C, Circle-A, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

5. Appellate Authority, State Tax, RGST Department, Kar Bhawan, Alwar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mayank Vyas, Adv. for Mr. Pankaj Ghiya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Adv. for Mr. Bharat Vyas, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) 23/07/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondents to entertain the appeal and also condone the delay and allow the filing of appeal against the impugned order dated 29.08.2023

(2 of 4) [CW-2592/2024] (Financial Years 2018-2019) passed by Joint Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, enforcement Wing-C, Jaipur, whereby GST demand of Rs.30,82,368/- was raised on the account that the petitioner was liable to discharge Goods and Services Tax under the reverse charge mechanism on payments made towards dead rent, royalty, DMFT (District Mineral Foundation Trust), and RSMET. 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 on 14.02.2024.

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. He submits that the proprietor was occupied with the marriage of his daughter and was unaware of the assessment order. According to the petitioner, he came to know of the demand only upon receiving demand calls in the month of January, whereupon he immediately contacted his counsel. By that time, however, the period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 for filing an appeal, including the period within which delay could be condoned, had expired, leaving no statutory remedy before the Appellate Authority.

2.1. 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 of 4) [CW-2592/2024]

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.

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.

2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115

2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938

D.B. CWP 14658/2024

D.B. CWP 7260/2025

D.B. CWP 11794/2025

[2026:RJ-JP:28416-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-2592/2024]

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, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.

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 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. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 32/Mohita/Parshant