M/S Gopala Mines And Minerals Private Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gopala Mines And Minerals Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. The petition challenged an order that dismissed their appeal as being barred by limitation. The petitioner's counsel brought to the Court's attention previous orders passed by the same Division Bench in similar matters. These prior orders, specifically in the cases of M/s Balajee Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak and M/s Shekhawati Enterprises, dealt with the revival of time-barred appeals. The Court had previously disposed of those writ petitions by granting liberty to the petitioners to move an appropriate application for revival of their appeals, referencing a notification dated 02.11.2023. The present writ petition was filed against the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India.

Held

The Court held that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a previous decision of a Division Bench of the same Court in DB Civil Writ Petition No.16270/2023 (M/s Gopala Mines and Minerals Private Limited Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 22nd January, 2024. Following the precedent set in that order, and without commenting on the merits of the case, the Court was inclined to dispose of the present petition. The reasoning was based on the fact that the Court had previously granted liberty to petitioners to move an appropriate application for revival of their appeals in terms of the notification dated 02.11.2023, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. The ratio decidendi is that where a notification provides for revival of time-barred appeals, and the High Court has previously granted liberty to move such applications in similar cases, the same liberty should be extended to the present petitioner. The operative direction was to dispose of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for revival of the appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to revival of their time-barred appeal, considering the notification dated 02.11.2023 issued by the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs allowing revival of time-barred appeals subject to certain conditions? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that their appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation. They relied on previous orders of the Division Bench in similar cases (M/s Balajee Bharat Gas Gramin Vitrak and M/s Shekhawati Enterprises) where the Court allowed petitioners to move applications for revival of appeals in terms of the notification dated 02.11.2023. They sought similar relief. Revenue/State's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents. However, the context implies that the respondents were opposing the revival of the time-barred appeal.