High Court condones a two hundred sixteen day delay in filing

High Court condones a two hundred sixteen day delay in filing a GST appeal on merits.

Issue

Whether the High Court, exercising its writ jurisdiction, can condone a delay of 216 days in filing an appeal against the cancellation of GST registration when the Appellate Authority lacks the statutory power to condone delays beyond the prescribed time limit.

Facts

The petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled by an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal against this cancellation order with a delay of 216 days beyond the legally prescribed period under Section 107.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, noting that it had no statutory power to condone delays beyond the maximum period allowed by law.
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, explaining that the delay was caused by a prolonged illness and arguing that the matter should be heard on its merits.
The revenue department opposed the petition, contending that the appeal was strictly barred by limitation and that the cancellation order should stand.

Decision

Appellate Authority’s Limits Upheld: The High Court affirmed that the statutory Appellate Authority did not err on its own terms, as it is legally bound by the strict deadlines of Section 107 and lacks the jurisdiction to extend the time limit.
Constitutional Powers Override Caps: The Court ruled that under writ jurisdiction, it can look beyond rigid statutory barriers to address situations where delays are caused by factors entirely beyond the taxpayer’s control.
Protection of Livelihood: Taking note of the petitioner’s prolonged illness and the severe impact of registration cancellation on their business livelihood, the Court found it fair to intervene under the facilitative spirit of the GST framework.
Delay Condoned and Remanded: The High Court condoned the 216-day delay, set aside the impugned appellate order, and directed the Appellate Authority to restore the case and decide the appeal on its merits.

Key Takeaways

Statutory Limits vs. Writ Discretion: While a departmental tax authority cannot condone a filing delay beyond the statutory cap, the High Court retains the constitutional authority to condone such delays to prevent a failure of justice.
Livelihood Impacts Decisions: The cancellation of a GST registration strips away a citizen’s ability to conduct trade. Courts will treat registration matters with higher leniency when genuine medical emergencies cause compliance delays.
Consistency in Tax Relief: High Courts will apply a consistent approach across similar cases, leaning toward a trial on the actual merits of a business tax dispute rather than dismissing it purely on structural delays.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Thar Solar Irrigation

State of Rajasthan^*

Arun Monga and MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9329 of 2026

MAY 4, 2026

Harshvardhan Thanvi and Udit Mathur for the Petitioner.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J.- The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.3 to condone the delay of 216 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure-3), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Jodhpur, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration issued against the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 13.03.2026. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2026 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. It is submitted that owing to prolonged illness coupled with acute paucity of funds, the appellant was unable to properly concentrate on and manage his business affairs, which consequently led to the delay in preferring 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 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.

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. CGST 89 GSTL 353 (Rajasthan)/2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938, Man Singh Tanwar v. CGST 106 GST 181 (Rajasthan)/D.B. CWP 14658/2024, RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan [D.B. CWP 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 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 216 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 27.03.2026 is set aside. Delay of 216 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.