Supreme Court Allows Zoomcar To File GST Appeal After Rajasthan HC Disposed Its Writ Without Granting Liberty

The Supreme Court has recently permitted Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., a car-sharing platform, to file a statutory appeal against GST assessment orders arising from proceedings for the financial year 2019–20, after the Rajasthan High Court disposed of its writ petitions without granting liberty to pursue the appellate remedy.

A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was dealing with special leave petitions challenging the Rajasthan High Court's orders, which had declined to entertain Zoomcar's challenge to GST notifications extending the time limit for passing assessment orders and had disposed of the writ petitions along with the challenge to the consequent assessment orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024.

Before the Supreme Court, senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the company may be permitted to prefer an appropriate appeal against the assessment orders, pointing out that in similar matters the High Court had allowed assessees to avail the statutory remedy, but such liberty was not granted in the present case.

Taking note of the submission, the Supreme Court permitted the petitioner to avail the appellate remedy and disposed of the petitions.

“We dispose of both these petitions permitting the petitioner to prefer an appropriate appeal before the Appellate Authority… We grant four weeks' time to the petitioner to prefer a Statutory Appeal…”

The writ petition before the High Court had challenged notifications issued under Section 168A of the CGST Act extending the time limit for passing orders under Section 73(10) for FY 2019–20 by invoking force majeure powers. Zoomcar had also assailed adjudication orders dated July 23, 2024 and August 8, 2024 confirming tax demand along with interest and penalty.

The High Court, however, declined to entertain the challenge in view of the pendency of proceedings before the Supreme Court concerning the validity of such notifications and disposed of the matter, observing that the outcome of those proceedings would govern the case. Notably, no liberty was granted to the petitioner to avail himself of the statutory appellate remedy.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate Prakash Shah, appearing for Zoomcar, confined the challenge to this limited grievance. It was submitted that in similarly placed matters decided by the same High Court, taxpayers had been expressly permitted to file appeals under Section 107, but such liberty was denied in the present case. The modification application seeking such relief was also rejected by the High Court.

The court granted four weeks' time to file the appeals and clarified that any decision taken by the appellate authority would remain subject to the final outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings on the validity of the impugned notifications extending the limitation.

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prakash Shah, Advocates Mihir Mehta, Suyog Bhave, Vishnu Kant, AOR

For Respondent: S.D. Sanjay, ASG, Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR; Advocates Aman Jha, Gaurav Arya, Mayank Pandey, Shalini Singh,