Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6022/2025 CNR: RJHC020326302025 | URN: CW / 14256U / 2025 1.
M/s Shree Balaji Infratech, Being A Partnership Firm Having Its Office At Station Road, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan - 322230 Through Its Duly Authorized Partner, Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma.
2.
Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Komal Prasad Sharma, Aged About 58 Years, Permanent Resident Of Awas Vikas 2, House No. 319, Bulandshahar, Uttar Pradesh - 203001 And Currently Residing At Bhartiya Colony, Hindaun City, Karauli, Rajasthan - 322230, In His Capacity Of Being A Citizen Of India.
----Petitioners Versus 1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary (Tax) Finance Department (Tax Division), 1St Floor, Main Building, Gate- 2, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 2.
Union Of India, Through The Revenue Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi- 110001.
3.
Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax, Commercial Taxes Department, Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005.
4.
Special Commissioner, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax Commercial Taxes Depratment Kar Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Road, Ambedkar Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005.
5.
Assistant Commissioner, Circle-Karauli - Ward-Iii Headquarter Hindaun, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 302005.
6.
The Appellate Authority, Rajasthan Goods And Service Tax, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Mr. Mohit Khandelwal, Adv.
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-6022/2025] For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG, Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG Mr. Devesh Yadav, Adv. for Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG, Mr. Rakesh Choudhary, Sr. CGPC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order(Oral) 19/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.
1.
Petitioners herein, inter alia, seek revocation of the impugned appellate Order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Special Commissioner, RGST, Commercial Taxes Department, Jaipur, whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 10.11.2023 was rejected. The petitioners further seek revocation of the Order-in- Original dated 10.11.2023, passed by Assistant Commissioner, Ward-III, Hindaun, whereby the GST registration of petitioner no. 1 was cancelled due to non-filing of returns. The appeal against the said Order-in- Original was filed on 01.05.2024, i.e., after a delay of 53 days.
However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 07.05.2024 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on 09.04.2025.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide circumstances and genuine financial constraints. He submits that the petitioners could not file monthly GSTR-3B returns under Section 39 of the CGST/RGST Act for March to June 2023. Consequently, notices under Section 46 were issued for the respective months, followed by assessment orders under
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-6022/2025] Section 62. Thereafter, a Show Cause Notice dated 15.09.2023 was issued proposing cancellation of the petitioner’s GST registration, which was also suspended with immediate effect.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner’s GST registration was cancelled vide Order-in-Original dated 10.11.2023, which was merely uploaded on the GST portal and was not effectively communicated to the petitioners. He submits that petitioner No.1 subsequently filed the GSTR-3B return for March 2023 on 02.08.2023, while the firm, through petitioner No.2, filed returns for April to June 2023 on 22.02.2024. He further submits that the petitioners, after acquiring knowledge of the aforesaid Order-in-Original in the year 2024, sought to apply for revocation of cancellation in Form REG-21, but could not do so as the GSTN portal showed that the prescribed period had expired. Thereafter, the appeal filed by petitioner No.2 on 01.05.2024 against the said Order-in-Original was consequently dismissed on 07.05.2024 solely on the ground of limitation.
2.2 Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had already discharged the tax liability determined in the assessment orders, along with applicable interest and penalty, upon filing the returns. He further submits that the respondents have attached the petitione’s bank accounts, causing financial hardship, despite no further recovery being warranted. It is also submitted that the Order-in-Original dated 10.11.2023 was passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing as mandated under Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority, instead of considering these circumstances and the merits of the appeal, rejected the same solely on limitation.
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-6022/2025] 3.
In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying on the various Division Bench judgments of this very Court in M/s M R Traders v. UOI1, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors2, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.3, RPC PSIPL JV Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors4 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors5 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 counsels for the respondents oppose the above submission and contends that the impugned appellate order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation. Further, the Order- in-Original dated 10.11.2023 was duly communicated to the petitioner as the same was uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioners had sufficient time and right to file an appeal against the same before the appellate authority, within the time limit prescribed under the Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, however, the petitioner failed to do so.
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/CGST Act, 2017, however, considering the reasons owing to which the petitioners could not submit its appeal within the stipulated time, being beyond its control, non- 1 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 2 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 3 D.B. CWP 14658/2024 4 D.B. CWP 7260/2025 5 D.B. CWP 11794/2025
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-6022/2025] adjudication of appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioners.
7.
In the judgments cited above, this Court, while allowing the writ petitions, have issued directions to entertain the appeal on merits.
8.
Aside above, reference may also be had to a Division Bench Judgment rendered by Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as Luxmi Traders versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Ors.6, wherein based on elaborate discussion and deliberations thereof, following view has been taken.
“60. On the basis of discussions and deliberations aforesaid, we come to the following conclusions:- (i) Service of SCN upon the petitioner/assessee concerned cannot be deemed sufficient merely on account of its uploading on the Common Portal, unless its receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed.
(ii) Where SCN is served only by way of uploading it on the Common Portal and in the absence of reply filed by the petitioner/assessee concerned, ex parte order is passed in orginal, the proceedings would stand restored to the stage of issuance of SCN and the petitioner would be at liberty to file reply to the SCN within a period of four weeks from today whereafter, the Department shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing.
(iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the pe- riod of limitation for filing of appeal would not be triggered, and the assessee aggrieved will have the right to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today.
(iv) Where appeals filed against the order-in-original, which was served only by uploading it on the Common Portal are dismissed on the ground of limitation, the order of the Appellate Court shall be set aside and the appeal would stand restored to its original number, and would be heard and decided on merits.
(v) In cases where SCNs were served only on portal and ex parte adjudication order was passed for want of reply of assessee and appeal against the said order was dismissed on the ground of delay, both adjudication order and order-in-appeal shall be set aside and proceedings will be restored at the stage of issuance of SCN and petitioner/assessee shall be at liberty to file reply to SCN within four weeks from today, whereafter, the department shall proceed further after affording due opportunity of hearing.” 9.
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid view expressed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, we are in respectful agreement therewith and accordingly, see no reason why the benefit be not accorded to the petitioners herein.
6 (2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025.
[2026:RJ-JP:33101-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-6022/2025] 10.
In the premise, following the consistent view as already taken by this Court, ibid, we allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay in filing of the appeal by the petitioners.
11.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioners and adjudicate the same on merits, provided the same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.
12.
All pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 90/Ashwani-Tanisha