Facts of the case:

In this case, the petitioner, a Goods Transport Agency (GTA), sought an advance ruling under Section 97 of the Rajasthan GST Act, 2017 on whether the value of diesel supplied free of cost (FOC) by the service recipient was required to be included in the taxable value of GTA services. During the proceedings before the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), the jurisdictional SGST officer supported the petitioner’s stand and contended that GST was not payable on such FOC diesel. Accepting this position, the AAR, by ruling dated 16.06.2022, held that the value of diesel supplied by the recipient was not includible in the taxable value of transportation services.

Subsequently, both the SGST and CGST authorities preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority for Advance Ruling (AAAR). The petitioner challenged the maintainability of these appeals on several grounds, namely that the appeals were barred by limitation, that the CGST officer lacked locus standi, that the appeals were manually filed instead of electronically, that the statutory period of ninety days prescribed under Section 101(2) for disposal of appeals had expired, and that the department was estopped from filing appeals after having supported the petitioner before the AAR.

The AAAR rejected all preliminary objections and directed that the appeals be heard on merits. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Issue:

Whether the ninety-day period prescribed under Section 101(2) of the CGST/RGST Act for passing an appellate order is mandatory or directory. Whether the departmental appeals were barred by limitation under Section 100(2) of the GST enactments. Whether the CGST authority had locus standi to file an appeal as a “concerned officer” despite not participating before the AAR. Whether manual filing of appeals rendered the proceedings invalid.

Held That:

The High Court held that the period of ninety days prescribed under Section 101(2) for disposal of appeals by the Appellate Authority is merely directory and not mandatory. The Court observed that the statute does not prescribe any consequence for failure to decide the appeal within the stipulated period, nor does it provide for automatic lapse or abatement of proceedings upon expiry of the said period. Interpreting the provision as mandatory would defeat the statutory right of appeal conferred under Section 100.

Applying settled principles of statutory interpretation and relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the use of the word “shall” is not conclusive and that legislative intent must be gathered from the overall scheme and object of the statute. Mere delay in adjudication, without any demonstrated prejudice, cannot invalidate otherwise valid appellate proceedings.

The Court upheld the findings of the AAAR regarding limitation and held that the date of actual receipt of the advance ruling by the concerned departmental authorities could legitimately be taken into account for computing limitation. Based on the evidence examined by the Appellate Authority, one departmental appeal was found to be filed within the prescribed limitation period, while the other was filed within the additional condonable period and was accompanied by a request for condonation of delay. Since the delay was condoned within the statutory framework of Section 100(2), the Court found no reason to interfere with the AAAR’s findings in writ jurisdiction.

The Court held that Sections 98 and 100 of the GST Acts recognize both the “concerned officer” and the “jurisdictional officer” as separate statutory authorities. Under the GST framework, both CGST and SGST officers exercise jurisdiction over a registered person and each possesses an independent statutory right to challenge an advance ruling. The right to file an appeal does not depend upon whether a particular officer participated in the proceedings before the AAR. Consequently, the CGST authority was held competent to maintain the appeal.

Further, the Court held that Rule 107A of the CGST Rules specifically permits manual filing notwithstanding provisions prescribing electronic filing. Rule 106 merely prescribes the procedure and cannot be elevated to a jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, manual filing of appeals could not invalidate the proceedings.

Case Name: M/s Giri Transport Company Versus The Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling, Rajasthan and Others dated 20.05.2026