High Court Condones Appeal Delay Due to Bona Fide Medical Reasons and Orders Adjudication on Merits

By | September 17, 2026
0 Comment
High Court Condones Appeal Delay Due to Bona Fide Medical Reasons and Orders Adjudication on Merits
Issue
Whether the High Court can exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to condone a delay beyond the statutory limit under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017, where the taxpayer was prevented from filing the appeal due to bona fide medical reasons and portal-only uploading of the order.
Facts
  • Period & Demand: For Assessment Year 2019-20, a demand was confirmed against the petitioner-company for alleged excess Input Tax Credit (ITC) via an Order-in-Original.
  • Service of Order: The unsigned Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Order-in-Original were uploaded exclusively on the GST portal.
  • Cause of Delay: The director responsible for GST compliance underwent prolonged medical treatment, leading to non-monitoring of the GST portal and non-receipt of the order in a timely manner.
  • Appellate Dismissal: The petitioner filed a statutory appeal with a delay of 115 days, which the Appellate Authority dismissed due to the statutory limitation bar under Section 107 without examining the merits of the case.
  • Writ Petition: The petitioner approached the High Court seeking condonation of delay on the ground that non-adjudication on merits would cause severe prejudice and financial injury.
Decision
  • While the statutory Appellate Authority was bound by the strict limitation period under Section 107, the reasons for delay were genuinely beyond the petitioner’s control.
  • Dismissing the appeal without an adjudication on merits would result in grave injury and prejudice to the assessee.
  • In the interest of justice, the High Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the benefit of condonation to the petitioner.
  • The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain the appeal and decide the matter on its merits, provided the appeal is formally filed/restored within 30 days from the upload of the order.
Key Takeaways
  • Inherent Power of High Courts: Although the Appellate Authority cannot condone delay beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 107, the High Court under Article 226 can condone such delay in exceptional cases involving bona fide hardships.
  • Substantive Justice Over Technicalities: Where non-filing occurs due to genuine medical incapacitation or lack of direct physical service, courts prioritize adjudication on merits over procedural dismissal.
  • Risk of Portal-Only Service: Exclusively uploading orders/notices on the portal without physical or direct notification can create genuine oversights, which courts may consider sympathetically when supported by valid medical evidence.
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Ocean Ceratech (P.) Ltd.
v.
State of Rajasthan
Arun Monga and Ashutosh Kumar, JJ.
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17327 of 2026
SEPTEMBER  2, 2026
Aryan Singh Chouhan, Adv. for the Petitioner. Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, Sushil Kumar Sharma, Adv. and Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG for the Respondent.
ORDER
Arun Monga, J.- The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.06.2026, passed by the learned Appellate Authority, State Tax, Jaipur-II, whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 23.08.2024 was rejected. The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 23.08.2024, passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Circle H, Jaipur-II, whereby the demand raised against the petitioner, on account of alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit was confirmed (for Financial Year: April 2019 to March 2020). The appeal against the said order was filed on 15.04.2025, i.e., after a delay of 115 days. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.06.2026 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed this writ petition on 22.08.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. He submits that the Joint Commissioner issued a Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 in respect of Financial Year 2019-20, proposing a demand of Rs. 7,78,999/- on account of alleged discrepancy in outward tax liability, alleged excess availment of Input Tax Credit and liability towards interest on delayed filing/payment of returns. It is submitted that the Show Cause Notice and Form GST DRC-01 were unsigned and did not come to the knowledge of the petitioner. Thereafter, a Reminder dated 09.07.2024 was issued, whereby the fact that the petitioner has not filed the reply and not appeared in the proceedings were recorded and a date for personal hearing was fixed on 29.07.2024. The petitioner states that during the relevant period, Shri Sarwan Kumar Mahala, Director of the petitioner-Company, who was overseeing its GST affairs and compliances, was undergoing prolonged medical treatment and, consequently, the GST portal could not be regularly monitored. The non-filing of the reply and non-appearance in adjudication proceedings were neither deliberate nor wilful, but due to procedural lapses on the part of the Department.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was wholly unaware of the Show Cause Notice dated 08.05.2024 and the demand raised against it vide the Order-in-Original dated 23.08.2024. It is submitted that the said order and consequential demand were also unsigned and were not effectively served upon the petitioner. He submits that the said Show Cause Notice and Order-in-Original were merely uploaded on the common GST portal.
2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the said Order-in-Original came within the petitioner’s knowledge only when the Department contacted the petitioner in connection with recovery of the aforesaid demand in the month of April, 2025. It is submitted that upon acquiring knowledge thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.04.2025. However, the said appeal has been rejected vide Order-in-Appeal dated 22.06.2026 solely on the grounds of limitation under section 107(4) of the GST Act, 2017 without looking into the merits of the case.
2.3 Hence, the present writ petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M R Traders v. UOI 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115, 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] 166 106 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 No. 11794 of 2025, dated 12-8-2025] 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 counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contend 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.
7. In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8. Aside above, reference may also be had to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders v. Union Territory of Chandigarh 117 GST 230 (Punjab & Haryana)/(2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025. wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken.
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:-

(i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.

(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in original, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.

(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.

(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.

(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.”

9. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view. Accordingly, we see no reason why the benefit be not accorded to the petitioner herein.
10. 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.
11. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall 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.
12. All pending applications stand disposed of.