[2026:RJ-JD:9448-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3812/2026 M/s Pitrakripa Filling Station, Through Its Proprietormr. Lokesh Kumar Sagotia S/o Laxmi Chand Sagotia, Aged About51 Years, R/o V/p-Ogna, Thjhadol, Udaipur Raj. - 313906 ----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, ministry Of Finance, Department Of Revenue, Government Of India, New Delhi.

2. State Of Rajasthan, 1St Floor, Main Building, Government Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur - 302005.

3. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax,circle-E, Commercial Taxes Department, kar Bhawan, State Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Additional Commissioner, Appellate Authority, commercial Taxes Department, kar Bhawan, State Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Jawaria, through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG Mr. Rajvendra Saraswat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order (Oral)

20/02/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.

1. The petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order- in-Original dated 09.04.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Circle-E, Udaipur, Rajasthan, whereby demand of late fee on account of delayed filing of GSTR-1 and non-filing of GSTR-9 was confirmed through FORM GST DRC-07 and late fee was imposed under Sections 73 and 50 of the CGST/RGST Acts, 2017 for financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2021-2022, 2022-2023. 2023-2024. The petitioner also challenges the Order-in-Appeal dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Additional Commissioner, State Tax, Udaipur, whereby the statutory appeal preferred under Section 107 of the RGST/CGST Act, 2017 was rejected as time-barred. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal solely on the ground of limitation, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the appellate order, contending that the same has been passed without due consideration of the sufficient cause shown for the delay, which occurred due to circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the statutory appeal could not be instituted within the prescribed period of limitation on account of bona fide and unavoidable circumstances beyond the petitioner’s control. It is further submitted that the impugned Order-in-Original is vitiated by a patent lack of jurisdiction, inasmuch as the authorities have erroneously invoked Sections 73 and 50 of the CGST/RGST Act for the levy of late fee pertaining to delayed filing of GSTR-1 and non-filing of GSTR-9, which are matters of procedural compliance and do not fall within the adjudicatory ambit of Section 73. It is contended that the petitioner was acting under bona fide legal advice that an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity in the eyes of law and may be challenged at any stage.

2.1. It is further submitted that during the relevant period, the appellant suffered a fracture in his ankle and underwent major surgery in June 2025, followed by prolonged bed rest and medical supervision. Due to such serious medical condition and physical incapacity, the appellant was unable to coordinate with counsel or take necessary steps for filing the appeal within the stipulated time.

2.2 The appeal challenging the Order-in-Original dated 09.04.2025 was ultimately filed on 30.09.2025 i.e. beyond 4 month maximum permissible limitation period. It was thus, dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2025 by the Appellate Authority as time barred.

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 Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors¹, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.², RPC PSIPL JV Vs