Rajasthan High Court Condones 645-Day Delay in GST Appeal Owing to Portal Service of Order

Background and Procedural History

The Rajasthan High Court, in Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan, examined whether a substantial delay of 645 days in filing a GST appeal could be excused where the assessee claimed that the Order-in-Original dated 05.12.2023 was never properly communicated and had only been uploaded on the GST portal.

Proceedings had been initiated against the assessee under section 74 of the RGST Act on the allegation of non-payment of GST on royalty and District Mineral Foundation Trust (DMFT) contributions. These proceedings culminated in the Order-in-Original dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Circle-B, Jaipur-III.

The assessee eventually filed an appeal on 08.01.2026. The appellate authority, however, vide order dated 20.04.2026, rejected the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, holding that it had no statutory power to condone the delay in filing the appeal beyond the prescribed period under Section 107 of the **RGST/CGST Act, 2017`.

Aggrieved, the assessee approached the Rajasthan High Court by way of a writ petition,
seeking:

  • Quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 05.12.2023, and
  • A direction to condone the 645-day delay and require the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits.

Assessee’s Case Before the High Court

Claim of Non-Communication of Order

Counsel for the assessee argued that the delay arose from circumstances beyond the assessee’s control and was not a result of negligence or lack of diligence.

Key submissions included:

  • An outstanding tax demand of Rs. 11,98,963.48/- had led to the Order-in-Original dated 05.12.2023.
  • The assessee became aware of this order only when the GST department attached and froze the assessee’s bank account.
  • According to the assessee, the Order-in-Original was never served in a manner known to law; it had merely been uploaded on the GST portal, without any actual or acknowledged communication.
  • Since there was no valid service, the limitation period for filing an appeal could not be said to have commenced from the date of the order.

Challenge on Merits and Consequential Reliefs

Along with the limitation point, the assessee also challenged:

  • The legality of GST levy on royalty and DMFT contributions on merits, and
  • The imposition of interest and penalty, contending that these were unjustified, particularly when the order had not been properly communicated.

The assessee urged that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, without any element of wilful default or malafide intention, and sought condonation “in the interest of justice”.

Submissions by the Respondent Authorities

Counsel for the State and departmental authorities opposed the writ petition and supported the appellate authority’s order, contending that:

  • The statutory limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, had clearly expired.
  • The appellate authority lacked jurisdiction to condone a delay beyond the maximum period authorized by statute.
  • Therefore, the order dismissing the appeal as time-barred was legally correct and justified.

Scope of Appellate Authority’s Power Under Section 107

The High Court acknowledged that:

  • The appellate authority is indeed bound by the explicit time limits prescribed in Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017.
  • It cannot travel beyond the statutory framework to condone delays outside the extended period specified in the statute.

However, the Court emphasized that in appropriate cases where the assessee is prevented from filing an appeal within time due to reasons beyond its control, rigid application of limitation rules without examining the merits could cause serious prejudice and grave injustice.

This is where the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 plays a corrective role, enabling the Court to step in and protect the assessee’s right to appeal when the statutory scheme results ...