High Court condones appeal delay caused by CA's communication

High Court condones appeal delay caused by CA’s communication failure to prevent grave injury to assessee.

Issue

Whether a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act can be admitted by condoning delay beyond the statutory period when the delay occurred due to communication failure by the taxpayer’s Chartered Accountant.

Facts

The matter pertains to the assessment period 2021-22.
The petitioner firm’s statutory appeal under Section 107 was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on the grounds of limitation.
The delay in filing the appeal was caused by a lack of timely communication from the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant, an event beyond the firm’s direct control.
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash the Appellate Authority’s order and requesting leave to pursue the appeal on merits, or alternatively, a remand for fresh adjudication.
The Revenue argued for strict enforcement of the statutory limitation period under the CGST/RGST Act.

Decision

While the Appellate Authority is bound by statutory limitation thresholds, rigid refusal to examine the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the taxpayer.
The delay in filing the statutory appeal was condoned in the interest of justice as it stemmed from circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control.
The writ petition was allowed, and the order of the Appellate Authority was set aside.
The Appellate Authority was directed to entertain and decide the statutory appeal on merits, subject to the petitioner depositing late fees, penalties, and mandatory pre-deposits as per the law.

Key Takeaways

Interference via Writ Jurisdiction: High Courts can exercise writ jurisdiction to condone procedural delays beyond statutory limits under Section 107 when strict enforcement would cause grave prejudice.
Bona Fide Professional Error: Delays caused by third-party professional defaults (such as non-communication by a CA) can be treated as valid grounds for equitable relief.
Conditional Adjudication on Merits: Relief granted against limitation bars is usually contingent upon fulfilling statutory pre-deposits and paying applicable late fees/penalties.

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN

New Godara Trading Co.

State of Rajasthan

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati and PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, JJ.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12145 OF 2026

AUGUST 20, 2026

Sharad Kothari, Pranjul Mehta, Kalpit Shishodia, Chirag Soni and Pramod Viraish for the Petitioner. Mudit Vaishnav, Harshvardhan Singh, Rajvendra Saraswat, Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG and Shyam Paliwal, Dy. SG for the Respondent.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been preferred seeking the following reliefs:-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction:-

(a)

Order dated 09.12.2025 for FY 2021-22 (Annexure-4) along with all consequential actions, may be quashed & set aside.

(b)

Issue an appropriate order or direction permitting the Petitioner to avail the statutory remedy of appeal notwithstanding the limitation prescribed under Section 107(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, or in the alternative, remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after affording adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner;

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Pratap Power Spares v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9882 of 2024, dated 28.07.2026]. The said order dated 28.07.2026 reads as under :-

“1. The petitioner herein, inter-alia, seeks a direction commanding respondents to condone the delay of 99 days infiling the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 28.08.2023 (Annexure-4), passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ward-II, Circle -A, Jaipur, whereby GST demand of Rs.20,67,203/- for Financial Year 20182019, was raised on the account of availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 03.04.2024. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 08.04.2024 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 petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 31.05.2024.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing the appeal was neither deliberate nor intentional but was occasioned by compelling and unavoidable circumstances. He contends that the wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm, Smt. Seema Shekhawat, had been suffering from severe Guillain-Barre Syndrome during the relevant period and was admitted to the ICU of Shalby Hospital in September 2023. She has continued to under go regular medical treatment thereafter. Owing to her critical medical condition and the consequent personal hardship, the proprietor was unable to effectively attend to the business affairs of the firm or pursue the statutory proceedings within the prescribed time.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that on account of the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner could not file a reply to the Show Cause Notice, whereupon the respondent Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned Order dated 28.08.2023, without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of hearing.

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 M/s M R Traders v. UOI1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors 2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors. 3, RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors 4 and RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors 5 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 contends 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 wing 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. 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 99 days (after granting relaxation of 120 days under Section 107 of CGST Act) in filing of the appeal by the petitioner.

9. 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.

10. Stay petition and all pending application also stand disposed of.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Kakar Automobiles v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13403 of 2026, dated 13.07.2026].

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Sharwan Singh Devda v. Union of India [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15910 of 2026, dated 18-8-2026]; relevant para whereof reads as under :-

“28) No doubt, there is no absolute bar to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India merely because it has been filed after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal but not as a matter of course. However, while exercising jurisdiction under Article226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot disregard the statutory scheme of limitation and entertain such writ petitions and condone the delay and remand back the case to appellant authority to decide appeal on merits. The statutory period prescribed for availing the appellate remedy cannot be circumvented by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. It is true that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, this Court may interfere with the original order notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal, but not as a matter of course. However, interference can be justified only in exceptional circumstances such as where an order has been passed by completely disregarding the principles of natural justice or inherent lack of jurisdiction is clearly established. In the absence of such circumstances, a writ petition cannot ordinarily be entertained so as to defeat the legislative intendment. In the present case, no exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated warranting interference with the order passed by the Proper Officer.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that all the judgments are in the same line and even the judgment in Sharwan Singh Devda (supra) provides a way out, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Court has noted that there is no absolute bar to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely because the writ petition has been filed after the expiry of the period prescribed for filing a statutory appeal, though not as a matter of course.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Court has observed that in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the Court may interfere with the original order, notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation for filing the statutory appeal, but not as a matter of course. Learned counsel submits that the present case is not a matter of course, as the delay occurred on account of lack of communication on the part of the petitioner’s Chartered Accountant (CA), as duly explained in the petition.

7. This Court finds that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory provisions of limitation under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the lack of timely communication on the part of the petitioner’s CA, which resulted in the petitioner not submitting the appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond his control, and also the fact that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner, the delay deserves to be condoned.

8. For the foregoing reasons and taking benefits of the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we allow the present writ petition and accordingly, set aside the order dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure-4) passed by the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority is directed to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merits, in accordance with law, subject to the petitioner firm depositing late fees, penalty and other statutory deposits for entertaining the appeal, as admissible.

9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.