Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:33166-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1296/2026 CNR: RJHC020050642026 | URN: CW / 2794U / 2026 Yadav Stone Group, A Partnership Firm Having Its Registered Office At M.L. No. 13/07, Near Village Korma, Tehsil Nainwa, Bundi, Rajasthan, 323512 Acting Through Its Partner Navneet Sharma Son Of Nina Sharma Aged About 43 Years Residing At Ram Vihar Colony, Mahendragarh, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1.
Joint Commissioner (Appeals), Central Goods And Service Tax, Jodhpur, G-5, New Jodhpur Industrial Area, Jodhpur-342003.
2.
Superintendent Circle Bundi, AC/CTO Ward, Sales Tax Office Teerath, Bundi, Rajasthan, 323001.
3.
Jurisdictional Officer At CBIC, Range-GST Range-XLI Bundi, CGST Division- Kota Rural, Zone Jaipur, Commissionerate Udaipur, 133, Rajat Grih Colony, Nainwa Road, Bundi. 323001 4.
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of India, New Delhi 5.
State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
Ms. Shradha Agarwal through VC with Mr. Aryan Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG & Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, AAAG Mr. Dev Yadav for Mr. C.S. Sinha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order (Oral) 19/08/2026 Per: Arun Monga, J.
1.
Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 07.04.2025 passed by Joint Commissioner, Central Goods And Service Tax, Jodhpur, whereby the appeal preferred against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2023 was rejected.
[2026:RJ-JP:33166-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-1296/2026] The petitioner further seeks quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 01.03.2023, passed by Superintendent Circle Bundi, AC/CTO Ward, Sales Tax Office Teerath, Bundi, whereby the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled due to non-filing of returns. The petitioner also seeks condonation of delay in filing the appeal and consideration of the same on merits. As per the facts on record, the appeal against the said Order-in-Original was filed on 09.01.2024, i.e., after a delay of 194 days. However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned appellate order dated 07.04.2025 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, petitioner filed the present writ petition on 15.01.2026.
2.
Learned counsels for the petitioner submit that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide circumstances. They submit that the Show Cause Notice dated 14.01.2023 was issued on the ground that the petitioner had not filed returns for a continuous period of six months under Section 39 of the CGST Act, 2017. Thereafter, the Order-in- Original dated 01.03.2023 was passed cancelling the petitioner’s GST registration retrospectively with effect from 01.07.2022, although such retrospective cancellation was neither proposed in the Show Cause Notice nor supported by the reasons stated therein. The notice and the cancellation order were merely uploaded on the GST portal and were never served upon the petitioner at its address.
2.1 Learned counsel further submits that, being unaware of the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner, in the ordinary course of business, filed its pending GSTR-3B and GSTR-1 returns for June 2022 and GSTR- 1 for July 2022 on 22.01.2023. Consequently, as on 22.01.2023, there was no longer any default in filing returns for six consecutive months,
[2026:RJ-JP:33166-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-1296/2026] and the very basis of the Show Cause Notice ceased to exist. The proceedings, therefore, ought to have been dropped. The petitioner became aware of the cancellation only in January 2024, by which time the remedy of revocation was no longer available, and accordingly preferred an appeal on 09.01.2024. However, vide impugned Order-in- Appeal dated 07.04.2025, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal solely on the ground that it was beyond the period condonable under Section 107(4) of the CGST Act, without examining the merits.
2.2 Learned counsel lastly submits that the delay was neither intentional nor attributable to any negligence on the part of the petitioner. He submits that the Order-in-Original was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority, instead of examining these aspects and the merits of the challenge, dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of limitation.
3.
In the aforesaid backdrop, we have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
4.
Learned counsels for the petitioner, 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 argue that sufficient cause of delay in filing the 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:33166-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-1296/2026] 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 contend that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by limitation. Further, the cancellation order dated 01.03.2023 was duly communicated to the petitioner as the same was uploaded on the GST common portal. The petitioner 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 petitioner could not submit 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, 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.
6 (2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025.
[2026:RJ-JP:33166-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-1296/2026] (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 pe- titioner/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.
We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view.
Accordingly, we see no reason why the benefit thereof be not accorded to the petitioner herein.
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 petitioner.
11.
Accordingly, the Appellate Authority shall now entertain the appeal of the petitioner 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 158/Mohita/Parshant