High Court exercises writ jurisdiction to condone a 720-day

High Court exercises writ jurisdiction to condone a 720-day delay in filing a GST registration appeal.

Issue

Whether a High Court can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to condone a substantial delay of 720 days in filing an appeal against the cancellation of GST registration, even though the statutory Appellate Authority has no power to condone delays beyond the strict limitation ceiling prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act.

Facts

Registration Cancelled: The Superintendent of GST in Udaipur passed an Order-in-Original cancelling the registration of the petitioner.
Belated Appeal: The petitioner filed an appeal before the statutory Appellate Authority against the cancellation order after a significant delay of approximately 720 days.
Appellate Rejection: The Appellate Authority summarily dismissed the appeal as time-barred, clarifying that it lacked any statutory power or jurisdiction to condone delays beyond the maximum ceiling provided under Section 107.
Writ Grounds: The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition, citing severe financial hardship and pointing out that they were actively pursuing non-recovery disputes before the MSME Facilitation Council during the intervening period.
Revenue Opposition: The Revenue Department strictly opposed the petition, arguing that the delay was excessive and that the statutory limitation period must be rigidly enforced.

Decision

Statutory Bar Confirmed: The High Court affirmed that the Appellate Authority acted correctly within its legal bounds, as it is strictly bound by Section 107 and lacks the inherent jurisdiction to condone delays past the statutory ceiling.
Writ Remedy Justified: However, the Court observed that the petitioner was prevented from filing on time due to reasons beyond their control, and absolute non-adjudication would cause them grave prejudice and a complete denial of remedy.
Delay Condoned: Exercising its extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court condoned the remaining 720 days of delay that sat outside the standard 120-day statutory window.
Remanded for Merits Review: The impugned appellate order was set aside, and the Court directed the Appellate Authority to admit the appeal and decide the matter fresh on its commercial merits.

Key Takeaways

Statutory Limits vs. Constitutional Power: While administrative tribunals and appellate authorities are strictly bound by the limitation ceilings in tax statutes, the High Courts retain the constitutional flexibility under writ jurisdiction to condone delays in extraordinary circumstances to ensure justice.
Registration Vital for Business Survival: The cancellation of a GST registration effectively shuts down a taxpayer’s business operations. Recognizing this severity, courts frequently lean toward a lenient view on procedural delays to restore a business’s right to trade.
Sufficient Cause for Delay: Actively pursuing legitimate alternative legal remedies (such as MSME recovery proceedings) combined with severe financial distress can collectively be accepted by a writ court as a valid justification for a delayed tax appeal.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Vishwas Enterprises

Commissioner (Appeals) of Central Goods and Service Tax^*

Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7856 of 2025

APRIL 13, 2026

Gaurav Shrimali for the Petitioner. Nilesh Choudhary and Kuldeep Vaishnav for the Respondent.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J.- The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.1 to condone the delay of 720 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 08.07.2022, passed by the Superintendent, Udaipur, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration was issued against the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 25.10.2024. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.01.2025 dismissed the appeal 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. During the relevant period, the petitioner was facing acute financial hardship and severe paucity of funds, which substantially impaired their ability to effectively attend to financial and legal matters, including the filing of the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay is thus occasioned by genuine and sufficient cause, and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.

2.1 It was further submitted that since amount of Rs.16,59,151/- remained outstanding from the buyer against invoice no.1 dated 16.03.2022¹, it resulted in severe financial constraints. Petitioner has already initiated legal proceedings for recovery of the said dues under the MSME Samadhan Online Portal before the Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Udaipur and now seeks to regularize its business operations by obtaining restoration of its GST registration to continue lawful business activities. Accordingly, the delay is bona fide, arising out of genuine hardship, and not attributable to any wilful negligence or malafide intent.

2.2 Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. The delay was neither intentional nor due to any negligence, but was caused solely by the genuine difficulties faced during the said period. 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 Molana Construction Company v. Central GST Department, Rajasthan 89 GSTL 353 (Rajasthan)/ 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central GST Department, Rajasthan [2024] 106 GST 181 (Rajasthan). D.B. CWP 14658/2024, RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7260 of 2025, dated 2-7-2025] and RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. CWP 11794 of 2025] 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 R Traders v. UOI 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 . For ready reference, relevant portion thereof is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“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 720 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 15.01.2025 is set aside. Delay of 720 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.

11. Stay petition and all pending application stands disposed of.