1. GST registration cancellation for non-filing of returns — Appeal rejected as time-barred under Section 107, CGST Act — Writ seeking restoration. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 734
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Arun Monga, Yogendra Kumar Purohit, JJ.
M/s M.R.Traders - Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4558 of 2025
Decided On : 07-01-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parasmal Chopra, through VC Mr. Aman Rewariya, Ms. Prerna Chopra for Mr. PM Chopra, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Ms. Shashi Vaishnav
For the Respondent: Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit for Mr. Rajat Arora
For the Petitioner: Mr. Parasmal Chopra, through VC Mr. Aman Rewariya, Ms. Prerna Chopra for Mr. PM Chopra, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi, Ms. Shashi Vaishnav
For the Respondent: Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit for Mr. Rajat Arora
While the statutory Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the CGST Act cannot condone delays beyond the prescribed one-month extension, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution retains discretionary power to condone such delays to prevent manifest injustice and protect fundamental rights to trade.
Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 107 - Limitation for filing appeal - Appellate Authority’s power to condone delay - Section 107(4) stipulates a strict three-month period with a maximum extension of one additional month upon showing sufficient cause - This statutory cap is absolute and operates as a jurisdictional limit on the Appellate Authority (Paras 11.2, 11.3, 11.4) - The application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is unequivocally excluded by necessary implication from the self-contained framework of Section 107 (Para 11.6).
(B) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Extraordinary jurisdiction - Constitutional discretion of the High Court is not curtailed by statutory limitation periods prescribed under Section 107 of the CGST Act - The High Court retains power to condone delays in appropriate cases to prevent a business from being rendered incapable of operation and to avoid manifest injustice (Paras 10, 11).
(C) Fundamental Rights - Article 19(1)(g) and Article 21 - Right to carry on trade and livelihood - Denial of statutory remedies on hyper-technical grounds of limitation, where the taxpayer intends to comply with tax obligations, would be disproportionate and unreasonable (Paras 12, 13).
Facts of the case:
The GST registration of a proprietor firm was cancelled due to non-filing of quarterly returns. The petitioner filed an appeal against the cancellation order with a delay of approximately 160 days. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal as time-barred, refusing to condone the delay beyond the statutory limit. The petitioner attributed the delay to the negligence and lack of communication by the entrusted accountant and professional consultant, as well as family medical emergencies.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the statutory Appellate Authority is bound by the rigid limitation period in Section 107(4) and cannot import powers from the Limitation Act, 1963, the High Court exercising plenary powers under Article 226 can condone such delays to prevent a complete denial of remedy.
Issues: Whether the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution, is precluded from granting relief due to the expiry of the statutory limitation period under Section 107 of the CGST Act; and whether the Appellate Authority can invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delays beyond the outer limit prescribed in Section 107(4).
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Section 107(4) of the CGST Act constitutes a jurisdictional cap for the statutory authority, but this does not restrict the constitutional elasticity of the High Court. To uphold the facilitative objective of the GST regime and protect the fundamental right to livelihood, the High Court may condone delays beyond statutory limits if sufficient cause is shown.
Result: Writ petition allowed; impugned appellate order set aside; delay condoned; appeal remanded to the appellate authority for adjudication on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner asserts bona fide delay and constitutional power to condone; Revenue urges limitation bars relief and petition is non-maintainable. (Para 3 , 5 , 6 )
3. Section 107 prescribes rigid limitation; appellate authority cannot exceed one-month condonation; Article 226 remains available for condonation in appropriate cases. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
4. Writ allowed; appellate order set aside; delay condoned; appeal remanded for merits adjudication. (Para 16 )
5. Does the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 remain available to condone delay beyond the statutory limit under Section 107?
Yes. Article 226 is founded on justice, equity, and good conscience; constitutional discretion is not curtailed by Section 107, allowing condonation to prevent remedilessness. (Para 10 , 14 )
6. Are subsequent division bench decisions restricting relief distinguishable from earlier rulings allowing condonation?
Yes. Subsequent decisions turned on their own facts, lacking explanation for delay, and did not declare law limiting Article 226 jurisdiction. (Para 9 )
7. Can delay caused by counsel's negligence constitute sufficient cause for condonation in writ proceedings?
Yes. A litigant should not be penalized for counsel's mistake; bona fide reliance on counsel, supported by affidavit, may justify condonation under Article 226. (Para 14 , 15 )
ORDER :
Arun Monga, J.
1. Petitioner, a registered proprietor firm under provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 and Rajasthan Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CGST Act, 2017 and RGST, Act 2017’), is before this Court inter alia, seeking issuance of writ in nature of certiorari and/or any other writ, order or direction quashing the Order-In-Appeal dated 11.10.2024 (Annexure-6) and Order-In-Original dated 09.03.2023 (Annexure- 3) whereby its GST registration has been cancelled; and further, issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, in the nature thereof thereby directing respondents to restore or revoke the GST registration (Annexure-1) of the petitioner.
2. Briefly speaking, case pleaded in the petition is that:-
2.1. That the petitioner is engaged in the business of executing works contract along with whole and retail trade. From the Financial Year ("FY") 2021-22, the petitioner opted for filing the quarterly GST Return under Section 39(1) of the CGST Act, 2017.
2.2. That the petitioner being unaware of the procedural requirement/compliance as prescribed under the GST laws and rules made thereunder had engaged an accountant/local advocate for GST compliance on regular basis. The accountant/local advocate of the petitioner was entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring compliance with all GST related obligations as mandated under the provisions of GST laws, including the filing of GST returns. Since, the incorporation of the firm, all legal compliances were being duly made through the accountant/local advocate.
2.3. That on 15.01.2023, the respondents issued a show cause notice ("SCN") against the petitioner proposing to cancel the GST registration on account of non furnishing of returns for a period of six months. A reply to the SCN was directed to be filed within 30 days from the service of notice. Further, GST registration of the petitioner was suspended with effect from 15.01.2023.
2.4. That on 09.03.2023, the respondents proceeded to pass the Order-in-Original ("O-I-O") cancelling the GST registration of the petitioner solely on the ground of non-filing of quarterly returns with retrospective effect from 01.04.2022.
2.5. That the petitioner, being aggrieved by the O-I-O dated 09.03.2023, which resulted in the cancellation of its GST registration w.e.f 01.04.2022, preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 4 under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 on the GST portal on 18.12.2023 in Form GST APL-01.
2.6. However, there was a delay of 160 days in filing the said appeal by the petitioner as under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017. The appeal was required to be filed within 3 months from the date of communication of order (i.e., 09.03.2023) with additional 1 month if there is sufficient cause of delay. But the appeal by the petitioner was filed on 18.12.2023 (delay of approx. 160 days).
2.7. It is stated that the delay was primarily caused by a bona fide belief held by the petitioner that all GST related compliance, including the filing of the appeal, were being managed by the accountant/local advocate who had been entrusted with the responsibility of handling such matters on behalf of the petitioner.
2.8. That due to lack of communication and advisory between the petitioner and the accountant/local advocate, the appeal could not be filed within the prescribed period of limitation (3 months from the date of communication of the order and further additional 1 month) under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017.
2.9. The situation was further compounded by the continuous illness and bad health of the petitioner's father, which rendered the petitioner unable to actively follow up on the status of the appeal or monitor the actions of the accountant/local advocate in respect of this order of cancellation or appeal. Consequently, the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor due to any negligence on the part of the petitioner but was a result of unavoidable circumstances on the part
