Order (Oral)

Per: Arun Monga, J

1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks a direction commanding respondent No.5 to condone the delay of 418 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original dated 09.06.2023 (Annexure-2), passed by the Superintendent, Udaipur, whereby order for cancellation of GST registration was issued against the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 25.11.2024. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.12.2024 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. The petitioner is a 75 years old senior citizen. She has been suffering from medical ailments. Due to which she was unable to properly attend to legal matters. Further, owing to lack of awareness and knowledge, the impugned order did not come to her notice in time, thereby preventing her from filing the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. The delay is thus occasioned by genuine and sufficient cause, and not due to any negligence or lack of diligence on the part of the petitioner.

2.1 Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. The delay was neither intentional nor due to any negligence, but was caused solely by the genuine difficulties faced during the said period. 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 M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors¹2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.²D.B. CWP 14658/2024, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors³D.B. CWP 7260/2025 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors⁴D.B. CWP 11794/2025 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/s M R Traders v. UOI⁵2026 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 discreti