Judgment
[2026:RJ-JP:32852-DB] (1 of 5) [CW-9062/2026] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9062/2026 CNR: RJHC020456782026 | URN: CW / 20061U / 2026 M/s. Anand Minerals And Chemical, Through Its Proprietor, Sh.
Surjeet Singh Jodha, S/o. Sh. Sajjan Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Dr. Sajjan Singh Colony, Chhawani Railway Fatak Ke Bahar, Beawar, District- Ajmer (Raj.) Having Gstin No.
08Bgypj2209K1Zx.
----Petitioner Versus 1.
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Bhawani Singh Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur -302021, Rajasthan.
2.
The Appellate Authority (P.C. Verma), Office Of The Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax Department, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3.
The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, Ward-1, Beawar, Kar Bhawan, Opp. Saket Nagar Police Chouki, Beawar (Raj.).
4.
Union Of India, Through Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of India, New Delhi ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) :
None present For Respondent(s) :
Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/08/2026 1.
Petitioner, inter alia, seeks quashing of the impugned appellate order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax Department, Ajmer, whereby the appeal preferred
[2026:RJ-JP:32852-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-9062/2026] against the impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Circle-A, Ward-1, Beawar, was rejected on the ground of limitation and further seeks direction to respondents to stay the effect and operation of the impugned Order-in- Original. As per facts on record, there is delay of 159 days in filing the appeal against the Order-in-Original, whereby GST demand of Rs.66,390/- for financial Year 2019-20 was raised on the account of wrongful availment of Input Tax Credit by the petitioner. The appeal against the said order was filed on 20.05.2025. However, the Appellate Authority vide impugned order dated 29.10.2025 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation as it does not have the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Hence, aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 12.05.2026.
2.
None present for the petitioner. However, the averments contained in the petition are that the delay in filing the appeal occurred due to bona fide circumstances. It is submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding registered taxpayer under the GST Act and has been carrying on the business of trading in a legitimate and transparent manner. The petitioner had purchased cement bags from M/s Shri Krishna Trading Company vide Tax Invoice dated 14.12.2019 (Annexure-1), against which Input Tax Credit (ITC) was availed in the Financial Year 2019-20. It is averred that the petitioner remained unaware of the Show Cause Notice dated 30.05.2024 issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017, alleging wrongful availment of ITC.
According to the petitioner, the said notice was never effectively served and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. Consequently, the petitioner could not submit its reply.
[2026:RJ-JP:32852-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-9062/2026] 2.1 Pursuant thereto, the impugned Order-in-Original dated 14.08.2024 came to be passed. The petitioner states that the said order was also not served manually or in hard copy and was merely uploaded on the GST portal. Owing to these circumstances, the petitioner could not take necessary steps within the prescribed period. It is averred that the delay was neither intentional nor due to any negligence. The Order- in-Original has been passed in complete violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 75(4) of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017 and the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity of personal hearing was ever granted to the petitioner. Further, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner solely on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, without adjudicating the matter on merits.
3.
Heard and perused the material on record.
4.
Reference may be had 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, wherein, sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal due to circumstances beyond control was shown and thus appeals were directed to be considered on merits after condoning the delay.
5.
However, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the impugned order has rightly been passed and appeal is now barred by 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:32852-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-9062/2026] limitation. They submit that the petitioner had sufficient time and right to file an appeal against the same before the appellate authority, but, within the time limit prescribed under the Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, 2017, yet 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.
(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.
6 (2026:PHHC099329:DB) in CWP No. 27139/2025.
[2026:RJ-JP:32852-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-9062/2026] (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.
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 105/TANISHA