Rajasthan HC Holds That Limitation Under Section 107 Of CGST Act Is An Absolute Bar Only For Appellate Authorities, Not For High Court’s Writ Jurisdiction

• The Petitioner was a registered taxable person under the GST regime, whose GST registration was cancelled vide Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2023. Upon such cancellation, the Petitioner initially decided to discontinue its business and, accordingly, did not prefer an appeal against the said order within the prescribed statutory period under Section 107 of the CGST Act.
• Subsequently, during a special GST drive conducted by the authorities, the Petitioner’s firm was declared fraudulent. Consequent thereto, notices were issued to the Petitioner’s purchasers demanding reversal of ITC along with applicable interest. These developments caused serious prejudice to the Petitioner’s business reputation and future livelihood, compelling it to reconsider its earlier decision to discontinue the business.
• In light of the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner preferred an appeal against the Order-inOriginal on 10.11.2023, by which time there was a delay of 167 days beyond the maximum period condonable under Section 107 of the CGST Act, even after availing the statutory relaxation of 120 days. The Petitioner submitted that the delay was neither wilful, deliberate, nor intentional, but had occurred solely on account of circumstances beyond its control and, therefore, deserved to be condoned in the interests of justice.
• The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, holding that it had no jurisdiction or power to condone a delay beyond the period expressly prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST Act, and therefore declined to examine the matter on merits.
• The Petitioner preferred the present writ petition before this Hon’ble Court. The principal issue for consideration before the court was whether the Petitioner’s statutory appeal against the Order-inOriginal dated 27.01.2023 could be dismissed as time-barred on the ground that the delay of 167 days exceeded the maximum condonable period under Section 107 of the CGST Act, or whether, in view of the bona fide and compelling circumstances which occasioned the delay, the appeal ought to be entertained and adjudicated on merits.

KEY OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT

• The Court observed that while the Appellate Authority is bound by the statutory limitations prescribed under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act and lacks the discretion to condone delay beyond the prescribed ceiling, constitutional courts exercising plenary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may, in appropriate cases, condone such delay so as to prevent a complete denial of remedy to the aggrieved party.
• The Court further observed that the CGST Act is not a statute enacted solely for the collection of revenue, but a comprehensive fiscal reform designed to consolidate multiple indirect taxes while simultaneously facilitating trade, commerce, and business continuity. The Court emphasised that any interpretation which renders the statutory appellate remedy illusory on hyper-technical grounds would frustrate the very object and purpose of the enactment.
• The Court also held that cancellation of GST registration, where it results in loss of livelihood and economic paralysis, coupled with denial of an effective opportunity to challenge such cancellation, undermines the inclusive and facilitative character of the GST regime. Such an approach, the Court noted, would amount to imposing disproportionate and unreasonable hardship, thereby offending the guarantees of equality and protection of life and livelihood under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
• Proceeding on this doctrinal foundation, the High Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was bona fide, having arisen from the Petitioner’s initial decision to discontinue business and the subsequent collateral consequences of being declared “fraudulent” and the issuance of adverse notices to purchasers. In these circumstances, the Court held that the delay deserved to be condoned in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors. [2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938], Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, CGST & Ors. [D.B. CWP 14658/2024], RPC PSIPL JV v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2025-VIL-715-RAJ], and M/s M R Traders v. UOI [2026-VIL-144-RAJ], reiterating that constitutional courts may relax statutory timelines in GST matters where strict compliance would occasion manifest injustice.
• Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned appellate order, directed that the delay of 167 days in filing the appeal be treated as condoned, and mandated that the statutory appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 27.01.2023 be entertained and decided on the merits in accordance with law.

AURTUS COMMENTS

• This judgment reinforces the settled position that the first appellate authority is strictly bound by the limitation prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act and cannot condone delay beyond the statutory ceiling of three months, extendable by one further month. However, the Court has rightly clarified that a narrow and technical reading of the provision cannot be allowed to defeat genuine cases where the assessee has been prevented by bona fide circumstances from pursuing the statutory remedy in time.
• The decision also reaffirms that while the Appellate Authority lacks jurisdiction to entertain a timebarred appeal beyond the statutory limit, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remains empowered to intervene where refusal to condone delay would result in business paralysis, loss of livelihood, or denial of an effective remedy.
• This approach is consistent with the Rajasthan High Court’s earlier rulings in M/s Vishwas Enterprises v. The Commissioner (Appeals) of CGST, Jodhpur [2026 (4) TMI 1498] and Rameshwari Narpatram Bishnoi v. Union of India & Ors. [2026 (5) TMI 786], where the Court drew a clear distinction between the jurisdiction of the statutory appellate forum and that of the constitutional court. In those matters, the Court emphasized that Section 107 operates as an absolute bar before the first appellate authority, but not as an impediment to the High Court’s power to prevent manifest injustice
• Collectively, these decisions do not loosen the statutory limitation before the Appellate Authority but reaffirm that Article 226 functions as a constitutional safety valve. Relying on M/s M R Traders v. UOI [2025 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115], the Court holds that the distinction between the jurisdictions is not one of sympathy or sufficiency of cause but of jurisdictional competence; and that where delay is genuinely explained and non-adjudication on merits would render the cancellation order unreviewable and inflict disproportionate hardship, Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution justify reviving the appellate remedy and directing a hearing on merits.
• At the same time, the Rajasthan High Court, as reflected in GvK Jaipur Expressway Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner of State Tax and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4011/2026 dated 6 July 2026] has held that writ jurisdiction is not meant to be used as a substitute for the statutory appellate remedy, particularly where the assessee has remained inactive for an extended period. In the present case, the Court found that the assessee approached the writ court nearly 21 months after the Order-in-Original, far beyond the period prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The Court rejected the plea that there was no proper service of the order, holding that uploading it on the GST portal was sufficient communication when the assessee continued to hold a valid GSTIN. It also noted that no reply was filed to the SCN, no extension was sought, and no personal hearing was attended, leaving no scope for a natural justice challenge.
• Thus, in other words, while Article 226 remains available as a constitutional safety valve, it is not intended to dilute the discipline of limitation in every case; the assessee must place complete and persuasive facts before the Court to justify interference, and the writ remedy must be used mindfully rather than as a matter of routine.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.