High Court Condones Delay in Filing Appeal caused by Pendency of Section 168A Proceedings; Directs Appellate Authority to Hear Case on Merits

ISSUE

Whether the delay in filing an appeal under Section 107 beyond the statutory limitation period can be condoned when the non-filing was attributed to the confusion arising from the pendency of adjudication/notifications under Section 168A (COVID-19 extensions/Force Majeure) and issues regarding the uploading of the order.

FACTS

The Missed Deadline: The petitioner-taxpayer failed to file an appeal against an adverse order within the statutory limitation period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act.
The Reason: The petitioner contended that the appeal was not filed due to the pendency of proceedings connected with Section 168A (which empowers the Government to extend time limits due to force majeure) and complications related to the order being wrongly uploaded on the portal.
The Writ: Facing a time-barred appeal, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking relief, citing that the issue was identical to an earlier batch of orders where relief was granted.

HELD

Identical Issue: The High Court noted that the facts and the legal issue were identical to a previously decided batch of writ petitions.
Justified Delay: The Court accepted that the non-filing of the appeal was due to the bona fide confusion regarding the adjudication under Section 168A.
Relief Granted: The Court held that the delay deserved condonation in the interest of justice.
Direction:
1. The petitioner was directed to prefer the appeal before the Appellate Authority within one month.
2. The Appellate Authority was directed to treat the appeal as being within limitation and decide it purely on merits without delving into the delay aspect.
Verdict: The Writ Petition was disposed of. [In Favour of Assessee]

KEY TAKEAWAYS

Section 168A as a Shield: This provision, primarily used for COVID-19 extensions, can be a valid ground for condonation if it created genuine confusion regarding timelines.
Writ Jurisdiction for Limitation: When the Appellate Authority is statutorily barred from condoning delay beyond 1 month (3+1 months), the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction (Article 226) to condone longer delays if there is sufficient cause.
“Merits” over “Technicality”: The judgment reinforces the principle that substantive rights of appeal should not be defeated by procedural technicalities like limitation, especially when there is ambiguity caused by government notifications or portal errors.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Shri Vijay Laxmi Traders

Union of India^*

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, ACJ.
and BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU, J.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16098 OF 2025

NOVEMBER 10, 2025

Ravi Gupta, Adv. for the Petitioner. Rohan Mittal, Adv. and Adtiya Godara, AAAG for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. In bunch of petitions decided by this Court in Eagle Trans Shipping and Logistics India (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India (Rajasthan)/D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16649/2024 & other connected cases decided on 22.08.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

“1. On facts it is noticed that the petitioners have already filed a reply to the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017 and adjudication has already been done on the said aspects.

2. Keeping in view that the statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act as well as CGST Act, we would not interfere with the impugned orders, so far as the merits of the case are concerned. However, the question of validity of the notification issued under Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017 and provisions of Section 168 itself are a subject-matter of scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.4240/2025.

3. We therefore, leave it open to the petitioners to either make submissions if they so choose before the Apex Court or to wait for the final adjudication by the Apex Court. Of course, the validity of the impugned order with respect to the aspects of Section 168A of CGST Act, 2017 would be governed by the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Our views are buttressed by the view, which has taken by the High Court of Delhi in its decision dated 05.05.2025 in W.P. (C) No.6290/2024 and CM Application No.26217/2024, we accordingly, leave it open to the petitioners to challenge the order on merit in appeal. If an appeal is preferred within a period of one month henceforth, the same shall be examined purely on merits without delving on the questions of limitation.

4. In view of the above, all the petitions are disposed of accordingly.

5. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. “

2. The issue raised in the present petition is also identical. However, we find that the time period of appeal under Section 107 of the DGST Act, SGST Act as well as CGST Act, has already expired. It is on account of pendency of adjudication under Section 168A of CGST Act that the appeal was not filed.

3. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the delay in filing of the appeal deserves to be condoned.

4. Considering the facts of the case, we direct the petitioner to prefer the appeal within a period of one month, henceforth, the same shall be examined purely on merits without delving into the questions of limitation.

5. A speaking order shall be passed after giving opportunity to both the parties within a period of three months thereafter.

6. In view of above, the present Civil Writ Petition stands disposed of.

7. All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.