Dinesh Sharma S/O U.N. Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA

CW/10017/2024HC RajasthanGSTCNR RJHC02050389202430 January 2025Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The petitioner, Dinesh Sharma, proprietor of M/s Jai Ganpati Stone Crusher, filed writ petitions challenging an order dated April 30, 2024, passed by the Appellate Authority. This order dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The original adjudicating order was passed on August 24, 2023. The petitioner filed their appeal on April 23, 2024. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on April 30, 2024, citing it was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner contends there was no delay in filing the appeal and that the Appellate Authority dismissed it without providing an opportunity for a hearing, failing to consider that the limitation period commences from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

Held

The Court held that the Appellate Authority committed an error by dismissing the appeal without providing the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing. The Court observed that the Appellate Authority's order indicated that the limitation was counted from the date of the order itself, without any finding recorded regarding the date of communication of the order to the petitioner. The Court referred to Section 107(1) of the CGST Act, which stipulates that the limitation period shall commence from the communication of the order. Consequently, the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority were set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeal in accordance with the law, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Appellate Authority erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, contrary to principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Appellate Authority correctly applied the limitation period for filing the appeal, specifically concerning the starting point of limitation as per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal. They contended that the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without affording them an opportunity of hearing. Furthermore, the petitioner asserted that the limitation period for filing an appeal should commence from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, not the date of the order itself. Respondents' Arguments: The learned counsel for the respondents disputed the date of communication of the order, implying a disagreement on when the limitation period should have started.

Sections Cited

Section 107(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2025:RJ-JP:4219-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10017/2024 Dinesh Sharma S/o U.N. Sharma, Prop. M/s Jai Ganpati Stone Crusher 10, Suraj Nagar, West, Kailash Path, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner, State Good And Service Tax Department, Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur I, Rajasthan Zonal Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Appellate Authority -I, Room No. 116, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10019/2024 Dinesh Sharma S/o U.N. Sharma, Prop. M/s Jai Ganpati Stone Crusher 10, Suraj Nagar, West, Kailash Path, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan -302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner, State Good And Service Tax Department, Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur I, Rajasthan Zonal Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Appellate Authority -I, Room No. 116, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10066/2024 [2025:RJ-JP:4219-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-10017/2024] Dinesh Sharma S/o U.N. Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Prop. M/s Jai Ganpati Stone Crusher 10, Suraj Nagar, West, Kailash Path, Civil Lines, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302006 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, Through Its Finance Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Government Of India, New Delhi. 2. The Joint Commissioner, State Good And Service Tax Department, Rajasthan, Circle-I, Jaipur-I, Rajasthan Zonal Kar Bhawan, Jhalana Dungari, Jaipur. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. Appellant Authority-I, Room No. 116, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Priyesh Kasliwal, Adv. with Mr.Rahul Pandya, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sandeep Taneja, AAG with Mr.Aditya Sharma, Adv. Mr.Kapil Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order 30/01/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J [ORAL]:-

These writ petitions are decided by this order as the facts and issue involved are similar. For convenience, the facts from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10017/2024. 2. This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing the appeal as time barred.

The brief facts are that the adjudicating order passed on 24.08.2023. The petitioner aggrieved of the order filed the appeal

[2025:RJ-JP:4219-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-10017/2024] on 23.04.2024. The appeal was rejected on 30.04.2024 being time barred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no delay in filing the appeal. The Appellate Authority has dismissed

the appeal without providing an opportunity of hearing and considering that the limitation start running from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

Learned counsel for the respondents dispute the date of communication of the order.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.

The Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal without providing an opportunity of hearing. From perusal of the appellate order it is forthcoming that the limitation was counted from the date of the order. There is no finding recorded with regard to the date of communication of order to the petitioner. As per Section 107(1) of the CGST Act the limitation shall start running from communication of the order. The impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing.

The writ petition is allowed. (SHUBHA MEHTA), J (AVNEESH JHINGAN), J Himanshu Soni/27-29

Reproduced from the public record of the Rajasthan High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.