M/S Andeli INDIA Private Limited vs. State Of Rajasthan - Rajasthan High Court, 18 September 2026

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

[2026:RJ-JP:37897-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18866/2026 CNR: RJHC020903762026 | URN: CW / 39210U / 2026 M/s Andeli India Private Limited, First Floor, Plot No. H960-970, Riico Industrial Area, Near Mahalaxmi Dharam Kanta, Chopanki, Bhiwadi, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) 301019, Through Its Director Shri Sanjay Aggarwal. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Finance (Tax) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 2. The Chief Commissioner, State Tax, Rajasthan, Kar Bhawan, Ambedkar Circle, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur- 302005 3. The Appellate Authority, State Tax, Alwar, A-9, H.k.m. Nagar, Kar Bhawan, Alwar-301001 (Rajasthan) 4. The Deputy Commissioner, Circle-C, State Tax, Bhiwadi, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG with Ms. Chelsi Agarwal, AAAG & Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order(Oral) 18/09/2026 (Per: Arun Monga, J.)

The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing and setting aside of the Order-in-Appeal dated 09.06.2026 passed by the Appellate Authority, State Tax, Alwar whereby the appeal preferred against the Order-in-Original dated 25.02.2025 was rejected. The petitioner further

[2026:RJ-JP:37897-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-18866/2026] seeks condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the Order-in- Original dated 25.02.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Circle- C, State Tax, Bhiwadi, whereby GST demand of Rs.53,13,046/-, including tax, interest and penalty, for Financial Year 2020-2021, was raised on the account of discrepancy between the generated E-way bills and the Form GSTR-3B which declared NIL tax liability. The appeal against the said order was filed on 05.07.2025, i.e., after a delay of 11 days. However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 09.06.2026 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 petitioner filed this instant writ petition on 14.09.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the delay in filing

the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. He submits that before passing of the Order-in-Original alleging the tax demand, a Show Cause Notice dated 21.03.2024 was also issued against the petitioner, however the same was never duly served on the petitioner. It is submitted that pursuant to the said Show Cause Notice, the respondent no. 4 proceeded ex-parte and passed the Order-in-Original 25.02.2025. Learned counsel submits that the said show cause notice and the Order- in-Original were merely uploaded on the GSTN Portal by the respondents, without ensuring its proper communication to the petitioner as mandated under the provisions of the CGST/RGST Act, 2017. It is submitted that due to the aforesaid, the petitioner did not acquire knowledge of the impugned proceedings and consequently, could not file its reply.

1 Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it was only pursuant to the recovery initiated by the respondent-department on 23.05.2025 that the petitioner came to know about the passing of the

[2026:RJ-JP:37897-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-18866/2026] impugned order. It is submitted that immediately thereafter, the petitioner took steps to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. However, by then, the statutory period for preferring an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST/RGST Act had already elapsed.

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.

Having heard the rival contentions and perused the case file, we are of the view that, technically, the Appellate Authority was correct in holding that the delay of 11 days in filing the appeal could not have been condoned, there being no such provision under the CGST Act.

However, considering the reasons on account of which the petitioner could not submit the appeal within the stipulated period, which were beyond its control, we are of the view that non-adjudication of the appeal on merits would cause grave injury and prejudice to the petitioner.

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.1 in CWP No. 27139/2025, 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 original, 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 Depart ment shall proceed further after affording required opportunity of hearing. 1 2026:PHHC099329:DB

[2026:RJ-JP:37897-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-18866/2026] (iii) In cases where the order-in-original is passed after contest, and is served only by uploading it on the Common Portal, the period 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 ap peal 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.”

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.

In exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we are inclined to allow the present writ petition to the extent of condoning the delay as the same appears to have been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner and constitutes a justifiable ground. Accordingly, taking a lenient view and coupled with the fact that this Court has adopted a similar approach in M/s M R Traders v. UOI2, M/s Molana Construction Company v. Central Goods and Service Tax Department & Ors3, Man Singh Tanwar v. Commissioner, Central goods and Services Tax Department & Ors.4, RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors5 and RPC PSIPL JV Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors6, the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

The matter is remitted back to the learned Appellate Authority to decide the same afresh on merits in accordance with law, provided, the 2 2026 SCC OnLine RAJ 2115 3 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 3938 4 D.B. CWP 14658/2024 5 D.B. CWP 7260/2025 6 D.B. CWP 11794/2025

[2026:RJ-JP:37897-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-18866/2026] same is filed within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this Court.

10.

All pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 76/Ashwani-Tanisha