High Court invokes writ jurisdiction to condone a 301-day

High Court invokes writ jurisdiction to condone a 301-day delay in filing a GST registration cancellation appeal.

Issue

Whether the High Court can invoke its constitutional writ jurisdiction to condone an appellate filing delay of 301 days—which exceeds the statutory ceiling limit prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act—to review an order cancelling a petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect.

Facts

The proper officer passed an Order-in-Original that cancelled the petitioner’s GST registration with retrospective effect.
The order was incorrectly uploaded on the GST portal, which disrupted the timeline for filing a timely appeal.
The petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority with a delay of 301 days beyond the extended statutory limitation period.
The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, stating that it lacked the statutory power to condone delays beyond the prescribed ceiling limit.
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court, seeking condonation of the delay and a direction to hear the matter on its merits to protect business continuity and livelihood.

Decision

Statutory Limitations vs. Writ Jurisdiction: Held, yes. While the statutory Appellate Authority is constrained by strict limitation ceilings, the High Court’s constitutional writ jurisdiction remains unfettered and can be invoked to condone delays in extraordinary circumstances.
Avoidance of Grave Prejudice: Held, yes. The court found that the reasons for the delay were beyond the petitioner’s control and that refusing to hear the case on its merits would cause grave prejudice and deny a fundamental remedy.
Livelihood and Trade Facilitation: Held, yes. The court emphasized that the GST framework is designed to facilitate trade, and since the retrospective cancellation directly threatened the petitioner’s livelihood, judicial intervention was fully justified.
Order Set Aside: Held, yes. The High Court condoned the 301-day delay, set aside the Appellate Authority’s dismissal order, and remanded the matter back to the Appellate Authority for adjudication on its merits.

Key Takeaways

Constitutional Override for Justice: Statutory limitation ceilings bind quasi-judicial bodies like the GST Appellate Authority, but they do not restrict the inherent power of High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution to condone delays and prevent a miscarriage of justice.

Technical Failures Mitigate Delay: When procedural delays are compounded by departmental actions—such as wrongly uploading an order on the digital portal—courts will take a lenient approach to ensure that technical glitches do not extinguish a taxpayer’s legal right to appeal.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

Rameshwari Narpatram Bishnoi

Union of India^*

Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8884 of 2026

APRIL 29, 2026

Aman Rewaria and Paras Mal Chopra for the Petitioner. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG and H.S. Chundawat for the Respondent.

ORDER

Arun Monga, J.- The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.3 to condone the delay of 301 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Sanchore, Ward-II, Headquarter Bhinmal, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration issued against the petitioner with retrospective effect from 22.07.2022. The appeal against the said order was filed on 25.02.2026. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure-9) 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 contended that the petitioner had relied upon the tax consultant entrusted with handling GST compliances and related proceedings, and owing to lack of proper communication regarding the cancellation proceedings, the Petitioner remained unaware that the registration had already been cancelled. It is further submitted that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the same, the petitioner took prompt steps to prefer the appeal. The delay is neither wilful, deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control.

2.1 Owing to these circumstances, learned counsel thus submits that the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. The delay is neither wilful, deliberate nor intentional, but has occurred for reasons beyond the Petitioner’s control. 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 89 GSTL 353 (Raj)/2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central GST Department [2024] 106 GST 181 (Raj)/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. Union of India [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 301 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 301 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.